ex-Apple CEO says they should've gone x86 in the 80's

"Judd" wrote in message
...

If Sun moved all of it's hardware to
PC/AMD64, would it make more money?

Quite possibly.

DS

Tony Nelson wrote:
It no longer matters, as all the things that made Macs worth using have
been destroyed by the NeXTies, at the same time that MS has made Windows
much better and nicer. It takes a real diehard to put up with throbbing
buttons, drawers, and the *nix command line, to name a few.

While I accept that Windows XP is much much better than all previous
incarnations, it is far from simple or user friendly. Macs DO have
windows beat hands down even with OS X, which I'd call a step back from
traditional Mac OS designs.

Read diehard, eh?
Throbbing buttons: When events happen in a window that does not have
focus, Windows throbs the task bar button.
Drawers: How is this different from "folders"? Or "directories"?
Different words from analogies with non-computer filing systems.
Command line: Not only is it often faster AND easier AND more flexible
to issue commands via a command line, but it is now mandatory for some
commands in Windows XP. I found out this morning that winipcfg was
removed from XP and you must use a command line version. From Win95 to
Win2k I've used the gui version because it required just two clicks to
release and renew, now it takes typing about 60 characters.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)

Eric Gisin wrote:
If Apple releases OSX for industry standard PCs, they will lose most of their
hardware revenues. They may make it up if the can sell OSX for the price of
Win 2k/XP Pro. They could get 10% market share this way.

Maybe I don't get what you are trying to say. From the manufacturer's
pages just now, OS X costs $129 while XP Pro costs $199 upgrade/$299
full. If you want multiple licenses, OS X leaps way ahead in lower
price. Either they sell at this price and probably take 10% market
share, or they sell at the higher Windows price and take 1% market
share. I don't see them raising their prices, even on commodity PCs,
and beating down Microsoft. I'd love to see them try, but I just can't
see it happening.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)

Alex Johnson wrote:
commands in Windows XP. I found out this morning that winipcfg was
removed from XP and you must use a command line version. From Win95 to
Win2k I've used the gui version because it required just two clicks to
release and renew, now it takes typing about 60 characters.


Win2k does not come with Winipcfg. (nor does NT)



-WD

Will Dormann wrote:

Alex Johnson wrote:

commands in Windows XP. I found out this morning that winipcfg was
removed from XP and you must use a command line version. From Win95
to Win2k I've used the gui version because it required just two clicks
to release and renew, now it takes typing about 60 characters.



Win2k does not come with Winipcfg. (nor does NT)


True enough - they have ipconfig.exe instead. ;-)

"Judd" wrote in message
...
Almost forgot that the AMD processor usurped the Pentium by a couple of
days
with an announced product that didn't even ship for weeks later. That's
history for you.

Are you talking about the Athlon or the Pentium @1Ghz? The Athlon was
available in full force almost right away, the P3 on the other hand was
available only on paper for several months. There a time when AMD was
shipping 12 times as many 1Ghz+ processors than Intel.

I'm not sure moving to the Intel platform would have made
them a more profitable company. If Sun moved all of it's hardware to
PC/AMD64, would it make more money?

No, for Sun the issue is not about making more money, but about minimizing
the hemoraging of their existing customer base to the low-end x86 world.
It's basically fighting fire with fire. Sun is finally making some decisive
noises about using Opteron servers now, after their latest record-breaking
losses this past quarter. What they're finding now is that the x86 server
market is encroaching into their low-end Sparc server market. Two processor
Intels were good, and four processor Intels were acceptable performers,
though they posed no threat at all in the 8P or higher realm. However, the
Opterons are definitely going to pose a threat at the 2P and 4P level and
may even be quite acceptable at the 8P level. This is irreversible, they
can't make Sparcs any more economically than they are already making them
right now, there simply isn't the volume, so cheapening the Sparcs isn't
going to help them. So they will have to concentrate on moving their Sparcs
even further into the higher end. The writing is on the wall for the
Sparcs -- move higher or die.

Yousuf Khan

"Alex Johnson" wrote in message
...
Command line: Not only is it often faster AND easier AND more flexible
to issue commands via a command line, but it is now mandatory for some
commands in Windows XP. I found out this morning that winipcfg was
removed from XP and you must use a command line version. From Win95 to
Win2k I've used the gui version because it required just two clicks to
release and renew, now it takes typing about 60 characters.

You used Winipcfg in Win2K? Winipcfg was supposed to be only available in
the Win9x/ME family of OSes. So with WinNT/2K/XP you should be using the
command-line-based Ipconfig.

Yousuf Khan

There is a winipcfg download from MS..

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
message le.rogers.com...
|
| You used Winipcfg in Win2K? Winipcfg was supposed to be only available in
| the Win9x/ME family of OSes. So with WinNT/2K/XP you should be using the
| command-line-based Ipconfig.
|
| Yousuf Khan
|
|

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:58:59 -0400, Tony Nelson
wrote:
In article
. rogers.com,
"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating
Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep
against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on
the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC:

All that would have been needed to make the transition to x86 practical
would have been an x86 processor that was a few times faster than any
current or near-term 68K processor, so it could emulate the 68K
processor with adequate speed. Otherwise, all existing Mac apps would
have run uselessly slowly on the x86 Macs.

Apple broke compatibility when they switched from the 68K line to
PowerPC anyway. It was simply that they felt that the design concepts
coming from RISC chips and being implemented in the PowerPC would wipe
the floor with that old CISC x86 design. Of course, these days AMD
and Intel's x86 chips are looking somewhat RISC-ish, and PowerPC's
instruction set is sufficiently large that it's tough to call it
"reduced". In the RISC hey-day of the mid-80s, I don't think anyone
would have thought that less than 15 years down the line the
difference between "RISC" and "CISC" chips would be essentially
non-existant.

It no longer matters, as all the things that made Macs worth using have
been destroyed by the NeXTies, at the same time that MS has made Windows
much better and nicer. It takes a real diehard to put up with throbbing
buttons, drawers, and the *nix command line, to name a few.

With Win2K and now WinXP, Microsoft has moved forward a lot in terms
of the useability of their desktop operating systems. However, they
are not without their problems. Security continues to be a concern
with Windows, and MS has made some rather, umm, *questionable* changes
to their licenses. If you actually read the current standard MS EULA,
it says a number of things that most users REALLY wouldn't agree with,
like the fact that you're allowing MS to access your PC to modify the
software at any time and for any reason, without your knowledge or
further consent (agreeing to the EULA is considered sufficient
consent). Not necessarily that MS would actually do this, but to
install any new patches from MS you have to agree to let them do just
that.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:22:52 -0400, Alex Johnson
wrote:
Tony Nelson wrote:
It no longer matters, as all the things that made Macs worth using have
been destroyed by the NeXTies, at the same time that MS has made Windows
much better and nicer. It takes a real diehard to put up with throbbing
buttons, drawers, and the *nix command line, to name a few.

While I accept that Windows XP is much much better than all previous
incarnations, it is far from simple or user friendly. Macs DO have
windows beat hands down even with OS X, which I'd call a step back from
traditional Mac OS designs.

How in the hell could OS X be a step back from traditional MacOS?!?
Old MacOS was a ****-poor operating system! It was like Win3.x,
modified and patched all to hell to make it sorta, kinda work well.
It was WAY behind the times technically speaking. Absolutely useless
for anything but a desktop and lacking the sort of memory protection
that all non-Win9x operating systems had.


No, OS X is a HUGE step forward. It's the main reason why I consider
Macs to be a viable platform again (the new PPC 970/G5 really helps in
this regard to).

Read diehard, eh?
Throbbing buttons: When events happen in a window that does not have
focus, Windows throbs the task bar button.
Drawers: How is this different from "folders"? Or "directories"?
Different words from analogies with non-computer filing systems.
Command line: Not only is it often faster AND easier AND more flexible
to issue commands via a command line, but it is now mandatory for some
commands in Windows XP. I found out this morning that winipcfg was
removed from XP and you must use a command line version. From Win95 to
Win2k I've used the gui version because it required just two clicks to
release and renew, now it takes typing about 60 characters.

All good operating systems should have both a powerful GUI and a
powerful command line. There are simply some tasks that are easier to
perform in one, while other tasks are easier to perform in the other.
What I've seen of OS X suggests that Apple has it pretty much spot-on.
WinXP still forces a bit too much to the GUI, while Linux tends to
force a bit too much to the command line.

Unfortunately with Macs you have dick-all in terms of choice when
buying a new system and you pay a heck of a lot for even their
cheapest box.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca