🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <olv4p5lsrstoknufqss60sqq7k2fqumlpt@navasgroup.com>,
 John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
> 
> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
> 

*Very* impressive.

If I could do all the tasks shown there using this (or a similar) gadget 
while sitting at the kitchen table, or by the fire in my living room, 
but have the operations actually being carried out (**and captured**) on 
my MacBook, which is tethered to a large-screen display, external 
keyboard, etc, in my home office -- that would truly be "insanely great".

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:12:08 -0800, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>
>Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.

It was also leaked about 6 months ago.  Nothing happened:
<http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/23/microsoft_courier/>
It sure looks nice.  However, since it's Zune based (WinCE 6), my
guess(tm) is that there will be copious legal limitations and
entanglements limiting user installed software, music, user created
apps, etc.  Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Microsoft Surface:
<http://www.microsoft.com/surface/>
and Palladium -> Trustworthy Computing (TwC) -> MSE -> etc:
<http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/>
Yawn.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:12:08 -0800, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>>
>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
> 
> It was also leaked about 6 months ago.  Nothing happened:
> <http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/23/microsoft_courier/>
> It sure looks nice.  However, since it's Zune based (WinCE 6), my
> guess(tm) is that there will be copious legal limitations and
> entanglements limiting user installed software, music, user created

It doesn't matter how great the hardware is, where are the apps?

The iPad is going to be the 2010 "educational" toy and entertainment 
device sitter that parents buy their kids. Those kids with a Nintendo 
DSi in the car will be so 2009. The Microsoft product, if it's real, is 
going to be more of a product used for actual work.

> apps, etc.  Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Microsoft Surface:

Microsoft Surface has been in commercial use for several years already.

SMS wrote:

> Microsoft Surface has been in commercial use for several years already.

Is this the software we are seeing on large screen TVs in TV newsrooms 
where the reporter is using pinching and swiping movements to shrink and 
move various windows?  I've seen a lot of this in the past few weeks on 
the news and on some tech TV dramas (CSI? or similar).

jc

John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
> 
> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
> 

        The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I 
think the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that 
are powered by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered 
down everything and I don't know how well it will do given the 
netbook market and how the typical netbook is far more powerful 
and versatile than the iPad.

John

John Slade wrote:
> The iPad uses watered down everything and I 
> don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the 
> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.

Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  For 
many people, ease of use is far more important, and this is where 
Apple's design often excels over other items in the marketplace.  The 
reason the iPod became the dominant mp3 player was because it is easy to 
use - not just to play music but also to load/buy music.  The reason the 
iPhone has become such a dominant phone/web/music appliance is again, 
it's very easy to use, including an easy way to add applications.  If 
Apple is as successful with the iPad's design, there's every reason to 
believe that a large percent of the market will find "easy to use" and 
"powerful enough" to be compelling reasons to buy, trumping "more 
powerful" and "more versatile" but harder to use products from other 
computer manufacturers.

jc

John Slade wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/> 
>>
>>
>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>>
> 
>        The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I think 
> the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that are powered 
> by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered down everything and I 
> don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the 
> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.

I bet the iPad is going to be a _huge_ seller. It's not a netbook 
competitor (that's the MacBook Air), it's a whole new segment.

iPad is going to be huge in the kids market. iPhone users probably won't 
buy it because they don't want to pay another $30 a month in addition to 
the $70+/month they are already paying. At least there's a lot of apps 
that are more than just games, unlike the Nintendo DS/DSi.

If someone figures out how to get a USB port onto it it could have a lot 
of vertical market applications as well.

JC Dill wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it 
>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far 
>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
> 
> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  For 
> many people, ease of use is far more important, 

        I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and 
use every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does 
not support Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash 
extensively. So right there a more powerful netbook has the 
advantage of running full versions of Windows 7 or XP and not 
the mobile versions. I think the iPad is going to compete 
against the iPod Touch and iPhone as well as netbooks. It may 
find a niche in the e-book reader market.

John

John Slade wrote:
> JC Dill wrote:
>> John Slade wrote:
>>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it 
>>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far 
>>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>>
>> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  
>> For many people, ease of use is far more important, 
> 
>        I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and use 
> every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does not support 
> Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash extensively.

Well maybe Apple is the only company that can make a stand against the 
extensive use of Flash.

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>>>
>>
>>        The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I think 
>> the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that are powered 
>> by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered down everything and 
>> I don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the 
>> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
> 
> I bet the iPad is going to be a _huge_ seller. It's not a netbook 
> competitor (that's the MacBook Air), it's a whole new segment.
> 

      If you saw the keynote speech where Jobs introduced it, 
you can easily see it's targeted at the netbook market. Even 
before that Jobs was telling reporters he was working on a 
netbook-type device.

> iPad is going to be huge in the kids market. iPhone users probably won't 
> buy it because they don't want to pay another $30 a month in addition to 
> the $70+/month they are already paying. At least there's a lot of apps 
> that are more than just games, unlike the Nintendo DS/DSi.

      I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" 
because of it's price and capabilities. More popular games are 
on cheaper devices more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad 
being more successful in the e-book reader market if the price 
comes down.

> 
> If someone figures out how to get a USB port onto it it could have a lot 
> of vertical market applications as well.

       It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.

John

John Slade wrote:

>      I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" because of 
> it's price and capabilities. More popular games are on cheaper devices 
> more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad being more successful in the 
> e-book reader market if the price comes down.

I'm sure you're going to be proven wrong. Parents spend $1000-1500 on 
DVD systems for their kids to watch movies in the car. $500 to keep the 
kids busy in the car, and then having the iPad to use at the destination 
via WiFi (instead of carrying a laptop) is going to make it the 
must-have kid's toy of 2010.

> 
>       It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.

No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various 
peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners, 
cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple 
is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.

In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> John Slade wrote:
> 
> >      I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" because of 
> > it's price and capabilities. More popular games are on cheaper devices 
> > more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad being more successful in the 
> > e-book reader market if the price comes down.
> 
> I'm sure you're going to be proven wrong. Parents spend $1000-1500 on 
> DVD systems for their kids to watch movies in the car. $500 to keep the 
> kids busy in the car, and then having the iPad to use at the destination 
> via WiFi (instead of carrying a laptop) is going to make it the 
> must-have kid's toy of 2010.
> 
> > 
> >       It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.
> 
> No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various 
> peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners, 
> cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple 
> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.

It is more likely USB OTG than USB device, as it supports the external 
keyboard (<http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/>, near the bottom), and the 
iPad Camera Connection Kit, which allows a camera to be connected to the 
iPad through USB.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Steve Fenwick wrote:
> In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> John Slade wrote:
>>
>>>      I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" because of 
>>> it's price and capabilities. More popular games are on cheaper devices 
>>> more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad being more successful in the 
>>> e-book reader market if the price comes down.
>> I'm sure you're going to be proven wrong. Parents spend $1000-1500 on 
>> DVD systems for their kids to watch movies in the car. $500 to keep the 
>> kids busy in the car, and then having the iPad to use at the destination 
>> via WiFi (instead of carrying a laptop) is going to make it the 
>> must-have kid's toy of 2010.
>>
>>>       It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.
>> No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various 
>> peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners, 
>> cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple 
>> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
>> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.
> 
> It is more likely USB OTG than USB device, as it supports the external 
> keyboard (<http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/>, near the bottom), and the 
> iPad Camera Connection Kit, which allows a camera to be connected to the 
> iPad through USB.

But it's not a general purpose USB port, the OS only supports stuff like 
the camera kit and keyboard. You can't plug in stuff like external disk 
drives, optical drives etc. Perhaps someone will figure out how to do this.

In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >       It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.
> 
> No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various 
> peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners, 
> cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple 
> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.

Maybe not via USB but they aren't stopping Johnson and Johnson from 
making a glucose meter through the dock connector for the iPhone so that 
should work for the iPad as well.

Of course in that case, the developer of the device will distribute 
apps. for free.


I notice there are a number of Cisco and Oracle business apps. as well.

And now there are 2 or 3 makers of IR dongles which allow iPhone to be 
used as universal remotes, with free apps.

The real question is whether the companies which sell computers to 
doctors and hospitals will develop for iPad.  If doctors seem interested 
in the product (for uses not just limited to their work), they may see 
an opportunity.

In article <hmupe0$uq0$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Slade wrote:
> > The iPad uses watered down everything and I 
> > don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the 
> > typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
> 
> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  For 
> many people, ease of use is far more important, and this is where 
> Apple's design often excels over other items in the marketplace.  The 
> reason the iPod became the dominant mp3 player was because it is easy to 
> use - not just to play music but also to load/buy music.  The reason the 
> iPhone has become such a dominant phone/web/music appliance is again, 
> it's very easy to use, including an easy way to add applications.  If 
> Apple is as successful with the iPad's design, there's every reason to 
> believe that a large percent of the market will find "easy to use" and 
> "powerful enough" to be compelling reasons to buy, trumping "more 
> powerful" and "more versatile" but harder to use products from other 
> computer manufacturers.
> 
> jc

There was a review of a Lenovo Ideapad "netvertible" this week by some 
blogs.  It's about $500-600 and it features a twist around screen as 
well as being able to go to a clamshell form factor.

Performance was said to be bad and battery life was under 4 hours.

Most of the people who've had hands-on time back in January said the 
iPad was fast.  Of course, it's not trying to run things like Photoshop 
but on a 10-inch screen, maybe it's not the best idea.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:23:26 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:12:08 -0800, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>>>
>>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>> 
>> It was also leaked about 6 months ago.  Nothing happened:
>> <http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/09/23/microsoft_courier/>
>> It sure looks nice.  However, since it's Zune based (WinCE 6), my
>> guess(tm) is that there will be copious legal limitations and
>> entanglements limiting user installed software, music, user created
>
>It doesn't matter how great the hardware is, where are the apps?

It's based on the Zune, so whatever was running on the Zune before it
died will probably work.  Yech.

Possibly, it will be sold as an "internet appliance" where you rent
your web based applications from Microsoft:
<http://home.live.com>

Of course, developers will be lining up to for Visual Studio Basic
Ultra-Lite Express Developers Edition, which requires signing the 200
page MS EULA, Release of Liability, and Loyalty Oath.

>The iPad is going to be the 2010 "educational" toy and entertainment 
>device sitter that parents buy their kids. Those kids with a Nintendo 
>DSi in the car will be so 2009. The Microsoft product, if it's real, is 
>going to be more of a product used for actual work.

It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
the manufacturer intended.  The iPod Touch and iPhone were suppose to
be Blackberry and HP iPaq killers.  Instead, it's turned into a nifty
game machine, porno viewer, YouTube viewer, and hackers delight (after
jailbreaking).
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdQmmbO2T4>

I don't know what one does with an iPad, but I do have a guess.  One
of the hacks in my office building had a cardboard full size mockup of
the iPad and was trying to see how it would fit on the dashboard of
his vehicle.  One person in this newsgroups was considering using it
as a portable order entry and cash register for his bicycle store.
Personally, I think it's just a bigger iPod Touch for those of us that
can't see the tiny screen and have the fat finger keyboard problem.

>> apps, etc.  Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Microsoft Surface:
>
>Microsoft Surface has been in commercial use for several years already.

Sorta.  There are a few high profile customers, slick devices, and
cool applications, but nothing that I can afford today.
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/microsofts-new-pc-surfaces/story-e6frganf-1111113649360>
    Microsoft said it would manufacture the machine itself and
    initially sell it to corporate customers, deploying the first
    units in November in Sheraton hotels, Harrah's casinos, T-Mobile
    stores, and restaurants.

    The company is selling the Surface for between $US5000 ($6078)
    and $10,000 each, but aims to bring prices down to consumer 
    levels in three to five years and introduce various shapes
    and forms.
Well, that was 2007.  Here we are 3 years later and nothing
affordable.

Ever read "Show-Stopper" by G.P. Zachary?  It's the story of how David
Cutler managed to deliver Windoze NT.  The delays, disasters, and high
pressure brute force necessary to get anything out the door at MS are
detailed in the book.  My guess(tm) is that any product that MS does
itself, instead of buying the company, requires such an effort.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
> the manufacturer intended.  

A photographer friend thinks the iPad will be used as a portable 
portfolio display device for photographers.  We won't need to make 
portfolio books anymore, just load photos into a slideshow application 
on the iPad and click play.  It will be easy (perhaps too easy) to carry 
multiple portfolios, each with a different type of image (e.g. 
landscapes, weddings, sports).

jc

In article <eqe6p51puipru62212l94gm2buhjuqnqn4@4ax.com>,
 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
> the manufacturer intended.  The iPod Touch and iPhone were suppose to
> be Blackberry and HP iPaq killers.  Instead, it's turned into a nifty
> game machine, porno viewer, YouTube viewer, and hackers delight (after
> jailbreaking).
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdQmmbO2T4>

I don't recall Apple calling them Blackberry and iPaq killers. Lots in 
the media, yes.


> I don't know what one does with an iPad, but I do have a guess.  One
> of the hacks in my office building had a cardboard full size mockup of
> the iPad and was trying to see how it would fit on the dashboard of
> his vehicle.  One person in this newsgroups was considering using it
> as a portable order entry and cash register for his bicycle store.
> Personally, I think it's just a bigger iPod Touch for those of us that
> can't see the tiny screen and have the fat finger keyboard problem.

Killer apps might be any MMORPGs. Latency would suck over 3G, but at 
least one could do character maintenance, AH, etc. Use the accelerometer 
for control.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
>It doesn't matter how great the hardware is, where are the apps?

Uh, the demo seemed to have plenty of apps built in already.  Okay, it's not 
going to give you a snow globe or liar's dice, but what the heck, the Courier 
Engadget certainly impressed me, and I'm not impressed by very much.

JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>A photographer friend thinks the iPad will be used as a portable 
>portfolio display device for photographers.  We won't need to make 
>portfolio books anymore, just load photos into a slideshow application 
>on the iPad and click play.  

Who needs an expensive iPad when a cheap picture frame display will accomplish 
the same thing?  Sony's got a nice one with automatic slide show for $100.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:22:21 -0800, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <eqe6p51puipru62212l94gm2buhjuqnqn4@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
>> the manufacturer intended.  The iPod Touch and iPhone were suppose to
>> be Blackberry and HP iPaq killers.  Instead, it's turned into a nifty
>> game machine, porno viewer, YouTube viewer, and hackers delight (after
>> jailbreaking).
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdQmmbO2T4>
>
>I don't recall Apple calling them Blackberry and iPaq killers. Lots in 
>the media, yes.

Correct.  Apple did not say that.  There was no need as the customers
and media can figure it out for themselves.  One look at iWork should
be sufficient.
<http://www.apple.com/iwork/>

>Killer apps might be any MMORPGs. Latency would suck over 3G, but at 
>least one could do character maintenance, AH, etc. Use the accelerometer 
>for control.

A what?  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game>
I'll plead ignorant as I don't play those.  The closest I've tried is
some online flight simulator air combat game where I was shot down 10
times in succession within a few minutes.  As for latency, get the
Wi-Fi version of the iPad.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:59:42 -0800, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
>> the manufacturer intended.  
>
>A photographer friend thinks the iPad will be used as a portable 
>portfolio display device for photographers.  We won't need to make 
>portfolio books anymore, just load photos into a slideshow application 
>on the iPad and click play.  It will be easy (perhaps too easy) to carry 
>multiple portfolios, each with a different type of image (e.g. 
>landscapes, weddings, sports).

Good idea.  Too bad Apple didn't include an SD card slot or USB jack
to install one externally.  (Drivel:  This kinda reminds me of the
NeXT Cube, which in 1989 didn't have a floppy disk drive.)  I'm not
sure what is the politically correct method of loading photos on the
iPad, but if it's like the iPod Touch, your friend is going to have to
do it with iTunes or one of an assortment of utilities.  I use Pod To
PC:
<http://www.podtopc.com>  ($20)
<http://www.podtomac.com>  (???)
An SD card slot would have been soooooo much easier.  However, you can
store an awfully large number of photos in 16, 32, or 64GBytes of
flash RAM in the iPad.

The iPad is scheduled for release April 3.  Let's see if Apple pulls
off another iPhone style release and gouges the early adopters.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>> John Slade wrote:
>>>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it 
>>>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far 
>>>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  
>>> For many people, ease of use is far more important, 
>>
>>        I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and use 
>> every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does not 
>> support Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash extensively.
> 
> Well maybe Apple is the only company that can make a stand against the 
> extensive use of Flash.

      Stand against Flash? Don't make me laugh, oh wait, it's 
too late for that. Apple is not producing an alternative to 
Flash. There are alternatives like Silverlight, HTML5 and 
others. I think the main reason Apple didn't want to implement 
Flash is the same reason other mobile devices didn't use it. The 
iPad is not powerful enough to run Flash well. However during 
the development of the iPad, Adobe has put out a mobile version 
of Flash that seems to work well for many devices. Why Apple 
didn't work with Adobe to put it on the iPad is anyone's guess. 
I guess Job's playing up the shortcomings of Flash prevents him 
from adopting the mobile version for use on the iPhone, iPad and 
iPod Touch.

       I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the 
overuse of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had 
not allowed Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind 
but that's not the case.

John

In article <hmvr2d$o36$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>        I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the 
> overuse of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had 
> not allowed Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind 
> but that's not the case.

Flash runs very well under OS X of course, it has too, or OS X would 
have long since disappeared. It's banned from other Apple devices for 
reasons I don't understand. 

Adobe have some very tasty open-source (and free) software these days 
too. Flex 4 (Gumbo) is fun -- develop serious Flash "apps" with emacs 
and mxml. Flash isn't going to go away because iSteve is "taking a 
stand" or some such nonsense. Same with Winders, for that matter.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple 
> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.

Truer (and sadder) words were never posted.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:59:32 -0500, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

>Flash runs very well under OS X of course, it has too, or OS X would 
>have long since disappeared. It's banned from other Apple devices for 
>reasons I don't understand. 

Some clues and guesses:
<http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012-5181434.html>
<http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/10/most-cdns-still.html>

I prefer a conspiracy theory.  Apple and Adobe were good friends when
the Apple standard for printing was Postscript.  Because of generallly
high license costs, Apple did everything it could to replace
Postscript including licensing Microsoft TrueImage (in trade for
TrueType a big investment from Micosoft in Apple).  TrueImage turned
out to be a total loser and Apple never did anything with it.
Eventually they gave up and licensed Postscript.  The pissing match
restarted when Apple didn't like the price for Display Postscript and
hacked together Quickdraw as a replacement. 

When Jobs left Apple to found NeXT, he did the basic work on hammering
Display Postscript into a workable system, only to have Adobe sell it
to many other Unix workstation manufacturers.  He was not thrilled.

That was 20 years ago.  Whether Jobs still holds a personal grudge
against Adobe or its founders is subject to debate.  Considering the
rocky relationship, and the perptual attempts to dump Adobe products,
my guess is that there's something going on at high levels.  Probably
someone at Adobe stole Steve's parking place.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:59:32 -0500, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Flash runs very well under OS X of course, it has too, or OS X would 
>> have long since disappeared. It's banned from other Apple devices for 
>> reasons I don't understand. 
> 
> Some clues and guesses:
> <http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012-5181434.html>
> <http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/10/most-cdns-still.html>
> 
> I prefer a conspiracy theory.

I think it's not that. Flash uses a lot of processing power, and hence a 
lot of battery power. Performance and battery life suffer. Better to not 
allow them and make up a story about them being unstable.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Good idea.  Too bad Apple didn't include an SD card slot or USB jack
> to install one externally. 

They do sell a kit with an SD card slot for the iPad. Of course most 
professional and "prosumer" D-SLRs use Compact Flash, but you can also 
import via USB directly from the camera. It's not a full USB port that 
you get, but it's good enough to transfer photos from a camera.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:27:04 GMT, sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
wrote:

>JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>A photographer friend thinks the iPad will be used as a portable 
>>portfolio display device for photographers.  We won't need to make 
>>portfolio books anymore, just load photos into a slideshow application 
>>on the iPad and click play.  
>
>Who needs an expensive iPad when a cheap picture frame display will accomplish 
>the same thing?  Sony's got a nice one with automatic slide show for $100.

Cheap is a relative term. I'm waiting for those picture frames to
break the $14.95 mark, then I'm jumping in.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:59:27 -0800, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple 
>> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
>> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.
>
>Truer (and sadder) words were never posted.

Apple lost their way.

Once upon a time they were streets ahead of the PC world, and for a
while they held a niche where better graphics were required. Also the
Motorola based architecture didn't have the limitations that the
earlier Intel based architecture did. Remember the days of 640K max
memory and the third party software to make the most of it? It was
also more intuitive than Windows.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:09:23 -0800, SMS wrote:

> I think it's not that. Flash uses a lot of processing power, and hence a
> lot of battery power. Performance and battery life suffer. Better to not
> allow them and make up a story about them being unstable.

Really? Why would Apple lie about why an Adobe product sucks? Surely the 
truth is worse than the lie they made up [and I assume Apple want this to 
look like Adobe's fault here]?

-- 
 <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
 19:40:06 up 20 days, 31 min,  4 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.01
 It is better to have been wasted and then sober
 than to never have been wasted at all

In article <tvp6p5d44pv330li8d1tbfno5qsn6pddih@4ax.com>,
 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:22:21 -0800, Steve Fenwick
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >In article <eqe6p51puipru62212l94gm2buhjuqnqn4@4ax.com>,
> > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's very rare when a new product niche is actually used in the manner
> >> the manufacturer intended.  The iPod Touch and iPhone were suppose to
> >> be Blackberry and HP iPaq killers.  Instead, it's turned into a nifty
> >> game machine, porno viewer, YouTube viewer, and hackers delight (after
> >> jailbreaking).
> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdQmmbO2T4>
> >
> >I don't recall Apple calling them Blackberry and iPaq killers. Lots in 
> >the media, yes.
> 
> Correct.  Apple did not say that.  There was no need as the customers
> and media can figure it out for themselves.  One look at iWork should
> be sufficient.
> <http://www.apple.com/iwork/>

You mentioned the iPhone and iPod touch, neither of which run iWork, nor 
interface with it in any meaningful way (e.g., you can't show a Keynote 
presentation on an iPhone). If you're saying that Apple is chasing the 
enterprise market, it doesn't seem so to me--the XServe is still sold, 
but only with quad-cores (the MacPro is up to 8 cores), but the  the 
XServe appears to have been replaced with a Promise product. I really 
don't see any substantial marketing effort towards enterprise. The whole 
iPhone vs. Blackberry is a creation of the media. If I said you were 
competing with AppleCare, that would be about as correct.


> >Killer apps might be any MMORPGs. Latency would suck over 3G, but at 
> >least one could do character maintenance, AH, etc. Use the accelerometer 
> >for control.
> 
> A what?  
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game>
> I'll plead ignorant as I don't play those.  The closest I've tried is
> some online flight simulator air combat game where I was shot down 10
> times in succession within a few minutes.  As for latency, get the
> Wi-Fi version of the iPad.

Flight sims would also be good applications, as long as there's an easy 
autopilot option to keep unintentional tilts from causing a player to 
auger in.

Both models have WiFi; the 3G version adds 3G and retains WiFi.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

In article <4uk7p5pk5856vk5orr9c6jvu8ib399m1kk@4ax.com>,
 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Some clues and guesses:
> <http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012-5181434.html>
> <http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/10/most-cdns-st
> ill.html>

This one actually makes some small sense:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>The iPad is scheduled for release April 3.  Let's see if Apple pulls
>off another iPhone style release and gouges the early adopters.

They also have the trademark infringements to work out.  There are two other 
computer-based "iPad" trademarks already.  It won't be as easy to wiggle out 
of them as they did with with "iPhone".  

I happen to have an iPad.  That's what I wrote on it some time back before 
his unit was even a gleam in his eye.  It's a bit hard to back up (I have to 
go to Kinko's), but it doesn't get viruses and it's easy to expand the memory. 
 Sells for $1.59 at any corner store or gas station.  

SMS wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Good idea.  Too bad Apple didn't include an SD card slot or USB jack
>> to install one externally. 
> 
> They do sell a kit with an SD card slot for the iPad. Of course most 
> professional and "prosumer" D-SLRs use Compact Flash, but you can also 
> import via USB directly from the camera. It's not a full USB port that 
> you get, but it's good enough to transfer photos from a camera.

Pro photographers will import processed photos from their computer, not 
raw photos from a camera.  Those that already use Macs will find it easy 
to use an iPhoto/iTunes transfer/sync type of interface.

jc

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:52:43 GMT, sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>>The iPad is scheduled for release April 3.  Let's see if Apple pulls
>>off another iPhone style release and gouges the early adopters.
>
>They also have the trademark infringements to work out.  There are two other 
>computer-based "iPad" trademarks already.  It won't be as easy to wiggle out 
>of them as they did with with "iPhone".  

Yep.  Also, the clone makers are suing and using the publicity for
their benefit:
<http://shanghaiist.com/2010/01/29/p88-chinese-ipad-clone-sues-apple.php>

>I happen to have an iPad.  That's what I wrote on it some time back before 
>his unit was even a gleam in his eye.  It's a bit hard to back up (I have to 
>go to Kinko's), but it doesn't get viruses and it's easy to expand the memory. 
> Sells for $1.59 at any corner store or gas station.  

Cute.  Even Etch-a-Sketch has a iPad clone called "Magic Pad":
<http://www.etch-a-sketch.com>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <hmvr2d$o36$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>>        I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the overuse 
>> of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had not allowed 
>> Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind but that's not the 
>> case.
> 
> Flash runs very well under OS X of course, it has too, or OS X would 
> have long since disappeared.
> It's banned from other Apple devices for 
> reasons I don't understand.

      Apple tends to be very xenophobic when it comes to their 
OS and hardware. I'm bet a hacked version of the mobile Flash 
version will make it's way to Apple's "i" devices.

> Adobe have some very tasty open-source (and free) software these days 
> too. Flex 4 (Gumbo) is fun -- develop serious Flash "apps" with emacs 
> and mxml. Flash isn't going to go away because iSteve is "taking a 
> stand" or some such nonsense. Same with Winders, for that matter.

      Apple is great at getting it's followers to believe 
everything that pops out of Jobs' mouth. I remember when Apple 
intentionally put out a firmware update that would disable any 
Mac with a third party CPU upgrade. This was an effort to force 
people to buy a new Mac rather than upgrade the CPU. Apple told 
every lie in the book including my favorite one. Apple claimed 
it was for "software stability". In the end there was a 
workaround and Apple wound up with egg on their face.

     With the iPad, I really get a laugh out of the slogan they 
picked to sell it. They claim "It's magical!".

John

alexd wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:09:23 -0800, SMS wrote:
> 
>> I think it's not that. Flash uses a lot of processing power, and hence a
>> lot of battery power. Performance and battery life suffer. Better to not
>> allow them and make up a story about them being unstable.
> 
> Really? Why would Apple lie about why an Adobe product sucks? Surely the 
> truth is worse than the lie they made up [and I assume Apple want this to 
> look like Adobe's fault here]?
> 

         Apple will lie because it might hurt sales. Apple will 
lie to put itself in the best possible outlook in the public 
eye. Companies do this all the time and Apple does it more than 
most. I already mentioned the Apple firmware scandal back in the 
90's. Then they had very misleading ads, one was even banned in 
Great Britain because it was blatant false advertising.

John

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 07:59:27 -0800, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
>> In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple 
>>> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve 
>>> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.
>> Truer (and sadder) words were never posted.
> 
> Apple lost their way.
> 
> Once upon a time they were streets ahead of the PC world, and for a
> while they held a niche where better graphics were required. Also the
> Motorola based architecture didn't have the limitations that the
> earlier Intel based architecture did. Remember the days of 640K max
> memory and the third party software to make the most of it? It was
> also more intuitive than Windows.

      I remember those days but I didn't have a Apple with a 
Motorola CPU, I had an Amiga and the Amiga was leaps ahead of 
PCs then. We didn't have the limitations that PCs did with the 
memory and we had better graphics. Then Commodore sat on it's 
lead in technology and the PC passed them by very quickly. So 
Commodore and the Amiga became history. I saw that same thing 
happening to Apple but Apple had the good sense to switch and 
start making PCs rather than compete with them. Now it seems 
Apple's OS X is becoming stagnant and Microsoft is far ahead 
with Windows 7.

John

In article <hn3uq8$lc7$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Now it seems 
> Apple's OS X is becoming stagnant and Microsoft is far ahead 
> with Windows 7.

Could you elaborate on that a bit? In what ways, exactly, is OSX 
becoming "stagnant" compared to Windows 7?

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Slade wrote:
> Now it seems 
> Apple's OS X is becoming stagnant and Microsoft is far ahead with 
> Windows 7.

Well Microsoft has at least leveled the playing field in most respects, 
and passed OS-X in others. Now the reason to buy a Mac is that you like 
the design of the hardware or you need to run one of the applications 
that isn't available for the PC. I.e., I know my nephew sticks with the 
Mac because he does a lot of freelance non-linear editing work with 
FinalCut Pro, which isn't available for Windows. He also uses Avid, but 
FinalCut is faster if the projects aren't too complex. The extra cost of 
the hardware is lost in the noise if he can complete projects a bit 
faster. Of course some of his colleagues run OS-X on high-end non-Apple 
machines, but it really isn't worth the hassle of doing this because 
there's always something that doesn't work quite right, and the monetary 
savings are small.

Apple's approach of diversifying out of just selling Intel based 
hardware into more profitable areas where their strength in ergonomics 
and human factors helps them dominate is very smart indeed.

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> Now it seems Apple's OS X is becoming stagnant and Microsoft is far 
>> ahead with Windows 7.
> 
> Well Microsoft has at least leveled the playing field in most respects, 
> and passed OS-X in others. Now the reason to buy a Mac is that you like 
> the design of the hardware or you need to run one of the applications 
> that isn't available for the PC. I.e., I know my nephew sticks with the 
> Mac because he does a lot of freelance non-linear editing work with 
> FinalCut Pro, which isn't available for Windows. He also uses Avid, but 
> FinalCut is faster if the projects aren't too complex. The extra cost of 
> the hardware is lost in the noise if he can complete projects a bit 
> faster. Of course some of his colleagues run OS-X on high-end non-Apple 
> machines, but it really isn't worth the hassle of doing this because 
> there's always something that doesn't work quite right, and the monetary 
> savings are small.

        The high-end workstation market is the only computer 
market that Apple truly competes in.

> 
> Apple's approach of diversifying out of just selling Intel based 
> hardware into more profitable areas where their strength in ergonomics 
> and human factors helps them dominate is very smart indeed.

      Actually I think Apple's portable devices and music sales 
are overshadowing their computers. They needed to go to Intel 
architecture to keep their computers from becoming obsolete.

John

John Slade wrote:

>      Actually I think Apple's portable devices and music sales are 
> overshadowing their computers.

It's the sale that keeps on selling.

> They needed to go to Intel architecture 
> to keep their computers from becoming obsolete.

The big problem with their old architecture was that they could no 
longer compete in the laptop market with the PowerPC because Intel was 
so far ahead in terms of low power consumption notebook processors. It 
was affecting battery life, thermals, and performance. They also got 
tired of paying a premium price for every peripheral chip they used in 
their machines.

The switch to x86 was one of the smartest moves they made in the history 
of the company. Only Jobs could have pulled that off without destroying 
the loyalty of the fanbois.

In article <hn4lsf$lcg$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>       Actually I think Apple's portable devices and music sales 
> are overshadowing their computers. They needed to go to Intel 
> architecture to keep their computers from becoming obsolete.

How would a computer become "obsolete" if it used a CPU other than Intel?

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:

> 
>> They needed to go to Intel architecture to keep their computers from 
>> becoming obsolete.
> 
> The big problem with their old architecture was that they could no 
> longer compete in the laptop market with the PowerPC because Intel was 
> so far ahead in terms of low power consumption notebook processors. It 
> was affecting battery life, thermals, and performance. They also got 
> tired of paying a premium price for every peripheral chip they used in 
> their machines.
> 

        That may have been part of the reason but the main 
reason was Motoroloa-IBM was not upgrading their processor 
speeds in the years right before the switch to Intel. You had 
dual-core Power PCs that could barely compete with the speed of 
single-core Pentium 4s. Apple would constantly lambaste Intel 
CPUs as being slower but those in the industry knew it was 
complete bull. I also think Motorola-IBM was not too interested 
in supporting Apple. As it turned out, years later IBM started 
producing some very good CPUs that are mainly used in Xbox 360s. 
IBM also makes the CPUs for Playstation 3s with Sony and Toshiba 
so it seems that IBM had no real interest in working with Apple 
in the future.


> The switch to x86 was one of the smartest moves they made in the history 
> of the company. Only Jobs could have pulled that off without destroying 
> the loyalty of the fanbois.

       Well some of those "fanbois" didn't like it too much. I 
was telling some of them that Apple would dump the PowerPC and I 
was told by many Apple folk that this would never happen. They 
told me that Apple would never put an Intel CPU inside a Mac. To 
them it was like a sacrilege to some of them. When Apple 
announced the switch it was funny to see them eat crow. That was 
the second time. Before that, many people said Apple would never 
put an IBM CPU in their systems as IBM was the main rival of 
Apple back in the day.

John

In article <hn8ok6$too$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>        Well some of those "fanbois" didn't like it too much. I 
> was telling some of them that Apple would dump the PowerPC and I 
> was told by many Apple folk that this would never happen. They 
> told me that Apple would never put an Intel CPU inside a Mac. To 
> them it was like a sacrilege to some of them. When Apple 
> announced the switch it was funny to see them eat crow.

Who ARE these people you mention? I know dozens of Mac users (all quite 
computer literate, thank you), who all seem to have a pretty level 
attitude about computing in general (many are Unix geeks). I never hear 
any of that sort of stuff from them. On the contrary, we knew about the 
upcoming Intel shift over a year before it was announced. It was common 
knowledge that Apple was maintaining an x86 build of all versions of OSX 
since the beginning. 

You hang out in some weird circles, since all the Mac users I know of 
(including myself) routinely operate with multiple platforms and have a 
pretty good handle on what's going on in the industry. Hell, I'm in the 
process of shutting down my last Mac server (and moving its services to 
a Ubuntu server). 

We use Macs because we like them for use to which they are put. I wonder 
if all this rabid "Steve Jobs worship" doesn't spring from your 
imagination.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

John Higdon wrote:
> In article <hn8ok6$too$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>>        Well some of those "fanbois" didn't like it too much. I 
>> was telling some of them that Apple would dump the PowerPC and I 
>> was told by many Apple folk that this would never happen. They 
>> told me that Apple would never put an Intel CPU inside a Mac. To 
>> them it was like a sacrilege to some of them. When Apple 
>> announced the switch it was funny to see them eat crow.
> 
> Who ARE these people you mention?
> I know dozens of Mac users (all quite 
> computer literate, thank you), who all seem to have a pretty level 
> attitude about computing in general (many are Unix geeks). I never hear 
> any of that sort of stuff from them. On the contrary, we knew about the 
> upcoming Intel shift over a year before it was announced. It was common 
> knowledge that Apple was maintaining an x86 build of all versions of OSX 
> since the beginning. 
> 

       Many of the Mac users were not against the switch to 
Intel by Apple. However some were what you call really fanatical 
about Macs. They hated Windows and anything with an Intel CPU. I 
was telling them that Macs would switch to some other CPU maker 
about four years before they made the announcement. This was a 
year or so after the P4 came out. It was clear that the PowerPC 
was becoming stagnant and Apple was starting to put dual CPU 
systems out to compete with single core P4s. This was even 
before Apple started putting out the G4s with two CPUs back in 
2003. It was clear to those of us in the industry that Apple 
would switch at some point in the future. I was saying this in 2001.


> You hang out in some weird circles, since all the Mac users I know of 
> (including myself) routinely operate with multiple platforms and have a 
> pretty good handle on what's going on in the industry. Hell, I'm in the 
> process of shutting down my last Mac server (and moving its services to 
> a Ubuntu server). 
> 

       The people who said Apple would never switch back in 2001 
and 2002 when I told them they would are a pretty weird bunch. 
They actually disliked Bill Gates, Microsoft and Windows. Even 
today many of them refuse to accept that Macs are now PCs. They 
think that Macs are still made from unique components. They have 
no clue that Macs are basically clones like HP and Dell make 
these days. Yes, truly weird people who refuse to accept this 
when this fact is widely accepted by people in the computer 
industry. People like electrical engineers who actually design 
computer components usually accept this. But occasionally you 
find a weird one who doesn't. I was talking to one the other day 
who claimed to be an industry insider. However, I realized the 
person didn't know much about the issue when he told me that 
Windows 7 still needs MS-DOS to run and is only a GUI for MS-DOS.

> We use Macs because we like them for use to which they are put. I wonder 
> if all this rabid "Steve Jobs worship" doesn't spring from your 
> imagination.
> 

       No. It stems from the weird people who won't accept that 
Macs are now PCs. Basically clones like HP and Dell make with a 
few firmware and cosmetic differences. These differences are 
about as huge as the difference between an HP or Dell desktop. 
You should check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6Wzmr_V0

       There is also a book, "Cult of Mac" that explores this 
issue. There are a lot of Mac users who act like cultists and 
it's not from my imagination. Many people look at jobs and how 
he dresses for these keynote addresses and how the crowd 
responds towards him. I'm not saying that this is only a Mac 
issue or that the majority of Mac users are cultists, but truly 
some are. I put them in the same cult as those "rabid" Star Trek 
fans.

John