Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Jun 2012 21:16 UTC
Windows This rumour has been rummaging around the web for a few days, but now that The New York Times has picked it up, it probably carries a bit more validity than it did before. Microsoft invited members of the press to a mystery event coming Monday, and supposedly, the company will launch its very own ARM tablet running Windows RT.
Thread beginning with comment 522852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by kovacm
by kovacm on Tue 19th Jun 2012 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kovacm"
Member since:

The PC approach was simply by far the best path, that's why it crushed virtually all the other* - also why it was the one which succeeded in the stated goal of Gates and MS, to make computers widely available, widespread (or maybe you want a return to those glorious times when very few had them, when you could feel special?).
And Windows was the most viable choice of the OS, at the time ( ).

this is most laughable part: Bill Gates is responsible that every house have computer - it was inevitably. Bell was only very lucky to have PC operating system monopoly position right from start.

anyway, today you have Apple that stomp all over Microsoft with software + hardware product, in new category and Microsoft can not fight back with "software only" + OEM approach.

that was point: if you do software and hardware under same roof you will make superior product.

*including Apple hardware - but you're too far gone, seemingly unable to assimilate the info that Apple hardware platforms failed, and they switched to the tech of PC world - Macs are PCs now. You can't understand that, as far as influence on software goes, Apple hardware (also mobile) is now generic - again, Kay certainly wasn't talking about industrial design.

Apple start to use PC components when they become "good enough".

Apple design, together with Motorola, AltiVec (SSE like) instructions to hardware accelerate (among other things) composite desktop. Intel chips get comparable SSE only few years later.
And you can apply same logic on everything else: they start to replace SCSI with IDE when IDE get DMA mod.
they replace NuBus slots with PCI (skiping ISA junk), same goes to EFI...

yes, in past 20 years PC standards improved and Apple accept one by one.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by kovacm
by zima on Fri 22nd Jun 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kovacm"
zima Member since:

Yup, you are too far gone, living in fantasy land.

Apple almost folded in the mid-90s largely because of ignoring, for a long time already back then, how the PC way of arriving at standards was better.

Here, have a word from your messiah:

lousy engineering management [...] the total is less than the sum of the parts

...and particularly:
Apple had its head in the sand for the last many years [...] missed out [...] attitude of arrogance [...] the rest of the world passed us by [...] we need to bring the Mac up into the modern world [...] because we weren't first, because we didn't set the standards [...] this whole notion of being so proprietary in every facet what we do has really hurt us [...] reinvent the wheel our own way; and yeah it might be 10% better but usually it ended up being about 50% worse

Of course, the marketing wasn't saying exactly that, so the faithful you could continue to worship BS like PowerPC "supercomputer on chip" G4 - a CPU way slower than what was available on the PC, except in few hand-picked Altivec Photoshop benchmarks.

And you're of course so quick to dismiss those who brought that modern world about which your messiah talks about, so quick to dismiss great achievements of MS... (did they play dirty from time to time? Sure, but everybody tries that... Were their products somewhat flawed for a long time? Sure, but they were still most suitable) Yeah, it was just "luck"

A "computer in every house" was a very clearly & publicly stated goal of Bill Gates (versus Apple already back then targeting mostly "profitable" people, ignoring "lesser" ones - I guess that makes you feel better, particularly in Balkans, Czech Republic, or maybe Baltic states, I guess)

And you still fail to recognize that Apple is one hw-sw success story - like you're blind to dozens upon dozens of colossal failures.

BTW, where hardware really matters, in servers - Apple again failed recently, pulled out, with the xserve market. Also, OSX brings plenty of its components from the outside, they bought iTunes, FCP, bought the capacitive tech they use, adopted khtml many crucial components not growing out of any particular synergy with hardware - what, again, Kay would likely had in mind.

You know, there was a time when I was embracing and recommending Apple. I stopped primarily so as to not be associated with people like you.

Edited 2012-06-23 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2