Dave00
Mar 29, 12:58 PM
It's utter silliness to try to predict market share for four years from now. Especially laughable that they try to predict it to the tenth of a percentage point. Four years way more than enough time for a new player to come in and dominate the field, not to mention time for a new kind of phone/device to appear.
Dave
Dave
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:59 PM
See the roll eyes after his post, I think he was being sarcastic.
While I agree with not listening to corporate run media, you are severely misguided if you believe the BBC is quality journalism.
Watch John Pilgers "The war you don't see" to see just how they think they should report what world leaders say. It's shocking.
John Pilgers? Does he reside in the US? Does he have a website?
While I agree with not listening to corporate run media, you are severely misguided if you believe the BBC is quality journalism.
Watch John Pilgers "The war you don't see" to see just how they think they should report what world leaders say. It's shocking.
John Pilgers? Does he reside in the US? Does he have a website?
whooleytoo
Oct 12, 03:58 PM
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
Erasmus
Sep 10, 05:39 AM
OK, Now Apple HAVE to release our precious Mini Mac Pro and put one of these in it!
Yep, Apple need a smaller Mac Pro with one processor very soon. I think maybe at Macworld, if not sooner?
Merom is going to stay at about this speed for many years. There are no quad core mobile processors on the Intel Roadmap.
So when we have 2 core Merom iMacs, which will no doubt last us until Santa Rosa half way through next year, and 8 core Mac Pros with dual Clovertowns, do people not see the slight gap???
Perfect for a Mini Mac Pro. Or a beefier iMac. But I would prefer the Mini Mac Pro. Then at least the lineup would be 2-4-8 core, instead of pretty much a quadrupling of power in well threaded applications between highest consumer and lowest pro. Now that's just insane.
So... Merom MBP's on Tuesday or Wednesday. Merom Macbooks in a month. Clovertown Mac Pros and Xserves, PLUS Kentsfield Mini Mac Pro (conroe on all but highest model) all at Macworld 2007. Not too much of a stretch at all, in my opinion, especially when all we are likely to see on the Mac Pros and Xserves is new CPUs dropped in.
It seems I got my iMac Ultra (in some form) so I'm starting lobbying now on Mini Mac Pro. One Conroe CPU socket, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCI Extreme slots, 2 HDD bays. 600W PSU, and enough cooling to allow us to continue to upgrade parts as long as the socket stays the same, which should be a few years yet.
Yep, Apple need a smaller Mac Pro with one processor very soon. I think maybe at Macworld, if not sooner?
Merom is going to stay at about this speed for many years. There are no quad core mobile processors on the Intel Roadmap.
So when we have 2 core Merom iMacs, which will no doubt last us until Santa Rosa half way through next year, and 8 core Mac Pros with dual Clovertowns, do people not see the slight gap???
Perfect for a Mini Mac Pro. Or a beefier iMac. But I would prefer the Mini Mac Pro. Then at least the lineup would be 2-4-8 core, instead of pretty much a quadrupling of power in well threaded applications between highest consumer and lowest pro. Now that's just insane.
So... Merom MBP's on Tuesday or Wednesday. Merom Macbooks in a month. Clovertown Mac Pros and Xserves, PLUS Kentsfield Mini Mac Pro (conroe on all but highest model) all at Macworld 2007. Not too much of a stretch at all, in my opinion, especially when all we are likely to see on the Mac Pros and Xserves is new CPUs dropped in.
It seems I got my iMac Ultra (in some form) so I'm starting lobbying now on Mini Mac Pro. One Conroe CPU socket, 4 RAM slots, 2 PCI Extreme slots, 2 HDD bays. 600W PSU, and enough cooling to allow us to continue to upgrade parts as long as the socket stays the same, which should be a few years yet.
Doctor Q
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
Congratulations to the artist, at least. And perhaps to Apple for the nice-looking product.
shigzeo
Apr 19, 07:42 PM
Whatever happens, and no matter how stupid I think this lawsuit is, I hope Samsung get a stinker on their international image where people think they are some cute Korean company. As stated many times in this thread, they are the biggest conglomerate in the world and could swallow Apple whole. Hell, they could swallow Venezuela whole, and maybe even Canada. In Korea, they even run the government through many arms.
Comparing an electronics company (Apple) to a freaking giant lizard conglomerate that owns everything and (a little and) electronics, is as stupid as can be. In the age of the internet, why not read a little, first, and then comment on that shytebag murderous bloated tax-evading totalitarian regime known as Samsung.
Comparing an electronics company (Apple) to a freaking giant lizard conglomerate that owns everything and (a little and) electronics, is as stupid as can be. In the age of the internet, why not read a little, first, and then comment on that shytebag murderous bloated tax-evading totalitarian regime known as Samsung.
e-coli
Apr 30, 01:30 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
amac4me
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
When this thing is released, it's gonna sell like hot cakes :eek:
DeathChill
Apr 30, 11:59 PM
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it?
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
This is true; a lot of people will side with Jobs/Apple without understanding the issue. However, I think that there are valid reasons for the current Blu-Ray issue as I understand it. I think to allow playback of Blu-Ray content, Apple is forced to lock down certain aspects of software (apparently at kernel level?) and it's a hard-sell, I guess.
Here's a translated article:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/14/native-blu-ray-playback-in-mac-os-x-right-owners-block-implementation
Eidorian
Jul 20, 01:22 PM
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D
Oh and no underclocking please. :p
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:35 PM
it is very easy to aim the gun for the chest and hit the head. For most people, that's a less than 5% change in gun angle, which for most pistols is less than 1/2" up. That is, he was aiming for the chest, and let the tip of his barrel rise less than 1/2" higher than it should go.
Which is completely reasonable if the rise was due to recoil and he didn't lower the barrel before pulling the trigger again. Another reason why gangbangers that hold the gun sideways are idiots--recoil is gonna take you off center-line and you'll start shooting arms instead of heads. :D
Which is completely reasonable if the rise was due to recoil and he didn't lower the barrel before pulling the trigger again. Another reason why gangbangers that hold the gun sideways are idiots--recoil is gonna take you off center-line and you'll start shooting arms instead of heads. :D
poppe
Sep 4, 03:36 PM
It doesn't seem Apple's style to make wireless n hardware when there is no standard yet, I would think they would make a Media Center Mac, possibly with a built in iPod dock, maybe adding DivX and XVid (or just sticking VLC on the damn thing).
It might not mean a using the Wireless N standard but using somethign completely different. Like the Airport Express is a Hub to recieve special videos that are coded specifically for it to make downloading a movie quickly, and to also be able to stream movies/tunes much faster and easier to your home telivision.
Perhaps you could hook up an Airport Express to a TV and then run OS X right through Airport controlling everything
It might not mean a using the Wireless N standard but using somethign completely different. Like the Airport Express is a Hub to recieve special videos that are coded specifically for it to make downloading a movie quickly, and to also be able to stream movies/tunes much faster and easier to your home telivision.
Perhaps you could hook up an Airport Express to a TV and then run OS X right through Airport controlling everything
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 11:10 PM
My only point in this whole discussion is Apple is not all sweet and innocent like so many like to think
Where did anyone say that?
And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
Where did anyone say that?
And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
Scottsdale
Apr 22, 12:43 PM
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
I also fear Apple's ridiculous 10.6.7 downgrade was somehow to show the MBA's IGP isn't as bad as it is going to be with SB IGP. Look at OpenGL performance on it, as it dropped 30% from 10.6.6. Now, we have seen Apple screw these things up before, but they also market their new products based upon prior products and list an OS X version tested on the prior gen. If they reverse course with 10.6.8 or 10.7, in the new MBA, then they might show only a 20% loss in IGP performance vs. the prior Nvidia 320m... when in reality, it might be more like a 50% plus loss in performance.
The big thing here, that NOBODY likes to think about is the 13" MBP uses a standard voltage CPU, while the MBA will use either ULV and LV or just ULV depending on who we believe. The ULV SB IGP operates at a greater than 50% loss than the Nvidia 320m. We can see this from competing products, that yes are running Windows but still have better OpenGL capabilities in the first place.
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Apple has been down the path of using a low voltage Intel CPU and IGP in the MBA before, and it was the worst Mac created since the Intel transition. It wasn't until Nvidia 9400m that the MBA became even usable. Yes, the SB IGP is better than prior Intel IGPs, but it's still utterly disappointing in LV/ULV variants. I guess the smart buyers will be buying clearance MBAs with Nvidia 320m and skip Sandy Bridge for a more reliable Ivy Bridge model. It depends on how each person uses the MBA, but I believe the vast majority are much better off with Nvidia and C2D. I just hope Apple doesn't destroy the MBA brand to try to make Intel's inferior IGP work... especially in LV and ULV variants.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
I also fear Apple's ridiculous 10.6.7 downgrade was somehow to show the MBA's IGP isn't as bad as it is going to be with SB IGP. Look at OpenGL performance on it, as it dropped 30% from 10.6.6. Now, we have seen Apple screw these things up before, but they also market their new products based upon prior products and list an OS X version tested on the prior gen. If they reverse course with 10.6.8 or 10.7, in the new MBA, then they might show only a 20% loss in IGP performance vs. the prior Nvidia 320m... when in reality, it might be more like a 50% plus loss in performance.
The big thing here, that NOBODY likes to think about is the 13" MBP uses a standard voltage CPU, while the MBA will use either ULV and LV or just ULV depending on who we believe. The ULV SB IGP operates at a greater than 50% loss than the Nvidia 320m. We can see this from competing products, that yes are running Windows but still have better OpenGL capabilities in the first place.
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Apple has been down the path of using a low voltage Intel CPU and IGP in the MBA before, and it was the worst Mac created since the Intel transition. It wasn't until Nvidia 9400m that the MBA became even usable. Yes, the SB IGP is better than prior Intel IGPs, but it's still utterly disappointing in LV/ULV variants. I guess the smart buyers will be buying clearance MBAs with Nvidia 320m and skip Sandy Bridge for a more reliable Ivy Bridge model. It depends on how each person uses the MBA, but I believe the vast majority are much better off with Nvidia and C2D. I just hope Apple doesn't destroy the MBA brand to try to make Intel's inferior IGP work... especially in LV and ULV variants.
javaGuru
Apr 22, 11:43 AM
I've been debating whether to get the iPad 2 or a 11.6" MBA. I currently own the original iPad but thought I would invest a little more and get a nice MBA instead of the iPad 2. I hope they add illuminated keyboards along with this upgrade.
JAT
Mar 23, 04:55 PM
Always one in a bunch who brings up a personal experience to shock people into shutting up. My sister was eaten by a hyena. No hyena jokes please.
Would you like more? Maybe people should stop DUI.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
Would you like more? Maybe people should stop DUI.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
berkleeboy210
Sep 19, 01:33 PM
Good, Now lets have some more studios come on in, and just maybe i'll buy the 80gb ipod
Fukui
Sep 19, 03:57 PM
First of all I am not complaining. So don't jump to conclusions.
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan. I think, i might take 640x480p over 720x480i, depends on how widescreen is handled (letterboxing vs true widescreen).
I am stating the obvious. DVD frame size is better than 640x480 frame size.
I acknowledge that the itunes movies are probably good. I just saying that I rather have the DVD frame size and quality. Plus I can have a physical DVD for back up with bonus, extras etc. It's just a preference.
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan. I think, i might take 640x480p over 720x480i, depends on how widescreen is handled (letterboxing vs true widescreen).
neko girl
Mar 18, 03:39 PM
In other news: You need a haircut, barber says..
alust2013
Apr 25, 12:06 AM
Technically I was only 20 over the limit (I'm in Michigan). Also, radar detectors are a great thing:)
-Don
Because that makes it safe.
A side note: It's under no circumstance appropriate to try to cause a wreck for someone driving slow. That's what causes road rage. Do it to the wrong person and you get killed. I would have just been nice and reported your plates to the police. I wouldn't have likely brake checked, but that's a different point.
-Don
Because that makes it safe.
A side note: It's under no circumstance appropriate to try to cause a wreck for someone driving slow. That's what causes road rage. Do it to the wrong person and you get killed. I would have just been nice and reported your plates to the police. I wouldn't have likely brake checked, but that's a different point.
GGJstudios
Mar 18, 11:19 AM
The biggest reason that we have been Virus and attack free in general is because we have been such an exclusive club for so long. ...
I mean really when 92% of the world runs on Windows, and mere 5% runs on OSX, who would you target?
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It has little or nothing to do with market share.
But as that percentage begins to increase
It already has increased, while the number of viruses that run on current Mac systems has decreased... to zero.
... and the typical Mac user has more money that the typical Windows user
You can't determine a person's wealth by the computer they have. Some are millionaires and spend $500 on a computer because it's not that important to them. Some are struggling to survive and spend every penny they can borrow to buy the latest gear. If you measure a person's financial strength by the type of computer they have, Mac users would rank higher in most cases, since Macs are more expensive than PCs with the same specs.
Your arguments have no basis in fact.
The Mac Malware Myth (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/29/the-mac-malware-myth/)
Apple market share tops 10%, Windows share lowest since tracking began (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/02/apple-market-share-tops-10-windows-share-lowest-since-tracking/)
I mean really when 92% of the world runs on Windows, and mere 5% runs on OSX, who would you target?
The market share myth is exactly that: a myth. It has little or nothing to do with market share.
But as that percentage begins to increase
It already has increased, while the number of viruses that run on current Mac systems has decreased... to zero.
... and the typical Mac user has more money that the typical Windows user
You can't determine a person's wealth by the computer they have. Some are millionaires and spend $500 on a computer because it's not that important to them. Some are struggling to survive and spend every penny they can borrow to buy the latest gear. If you measure a person's financial strength by the type of computer they have, Mac users would rank higher in most cases, since Macs are more expensive than PCs with the same specs.
Your arguments have no basis in fact.
The Mac Malware Myth (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/29/the-mac-malware-myth/)
Apple market share tops 10%, Windows share lowest since tracking began (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/02/apple-market-share-tops-10-windows-share-lowest-since-tracking/)
morespce54
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
What is your firearms experience? How many times have you been shot at? Do you think the security guard make a Hollywood head shot?
Not much to be honest but hey, that's only my 2c.
Don't loose any sleep over it! ;)
Not much to be honest but hey, that's only my 2c.
Don't loose any sleep over it! ;)
WildCowboy
Sep 5, 01:49 PM
Yerba Buena's going to be a busy place on Tuesday...the American Chemical Society is having a meeting at the Moscone Center next week with over 12,000 people in attendance. I'll have a friend in town for the meeting, so maybe I'll snoop around YPCFA and see what's up. Maybe the walls are thin enough that I can just put my ear up to them...