How does this make you feel, neckbeards?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P5PE20100526

this makes me feel so sexy in my pants

Good. Now they need to make a deal with PC vendors to get OS X on their machines to compete with Windows.

MacsscaM

Scams tend to be profitable until the users catch on, but when you're targetting idiots, they can be profitable in the long term. Steve seems to have hit a gold mine.

­

>>4
I think the decline of christianity in the west has left a void in the lives of many people, and apple is filling that void.

I don't care, I go here for programming discussion

OSX is Unix certified.

I giggle at the people buying Macs.
Kudos to Steve Jobs, he actually manages to sell shit for gold.

OS X is better than Windows.

That puts a big "GRUNNUR" on my face, because I own a ton of Apple stock.

>>10
No more than BSD is. All the good OS X has is thanks to their use of the Mach kernel, which is a good kernel implementing an UNIX OS.

Windows itself is great in its stability of its API, ABI, driver interface and other binary interfaces. This lets you write applications and drivers which will run well on a variety of NTs and even in 9x if newer APIs aren't used. I don't see Linux ever achieving such solid binary compatibility, given how much kernel and usermode interfaces change.

(I obviously don't care about GUIs, so don't mention that to me - be it Windows' or OS X's).

>>12
That's just because they ship Windows with a few dozen versions of every system library to achieve compatibility. It's also why installing Windows takes up 20GB.
You can achieve the same on Linux by bundling the needed libraries with your software (as many Windows programs do).

>>12
I can still run a program on Linux that was built 20 years ago, even though it was compiled against a different libc and used a different binary format.

>>14
Proof?

>>15
Look at the pudding

>>13
memory is cheap

>>17
MY ANUS IS CHEAP

>>17
memory may be cheap, but 10TB hard drives aren't.

>>16
Proof?

>>6
True. That goes for most material objects in general. Filling their spiritual void with mortal material goods... tsk, tsk.

>>6 Hello, Xarn.

>>22
^{Warning: Incorrect Xarn detection}

>>13,19
To be fair, the versioned dlls that MS provides (variations of libc runtime and mfc for example) only take 70mb on XP, and the system32 folder with most dlls usually wights 600MB-1.5GB on average. Binary compatibility with basic WinAPI can only be achieved in 8-10MB of DLLs on 9x. Full compatibility does take a lot more, but under 300MB is doable. The many different versions of the same library only applies to libc and visual studio modules which change version by version, and they're rarely exceeding 100MB total, even if you install most of them. The reason usermode executables will usually still work accross NT's is because the PE format remains mostly unchanged, APIs are usually grown, and compatibility with older versions maintained. Even commonly used APIs deprecated since Windows 3.11 are actively supported. Microsoft has no choice but to either stay as they are or slightly grow their API base. They've started redesigning how the Win32 API interface should be organized in NT 6, but of course, most applications are still and will still be using the same old APIs, for maximum compatibility. Even kernel-mode APIs which are subject to change are kept consistent across major versions, and inbetween major versions the changes aren't as drastic, so ports are still possible, unless some subystem was completly redesigned.

From one point of view, this is a good thing, as application developers have a solid base to build upon and will achieve binary compatibility on most systems. From another point, Microsoft's developers are faced with most likely very annoying maintenance jobs (you can sometimes see workarounds for other people's products's bugs in their own DLLs - providing it's something popular enough that it affects a lot of people) keeping compatibility. As most developers, people like to rewrite and improve their code, but I'm guessing Microsoft's Windows / Kernel developers rarely get such liberties, except when it's really needed and only on non-public APIs. When they add a new API, they'll be forced to support it for many years into the future.

>>23
_{Warning: Incorrect Xarn detection warning}

>>24
Binary compatibility is only important for proprietary software. They will just have to bundle their libraries if they don't want to play nace.
Also, the Linux userspace ABI is very stable.

>>26
I think you're confusing proprietary with closed source.

>>26-27
Not to mention that an application can be open source, but the user could choose to install the binary version first, and only recompile if he wants to perform changes or start developing the tool himself. Of course, there's nothing wrong with building everything from source, but it's not the only way, not to mention it can take quite some time to build everything in the system from source.

>>28
Not really my point, I've written proprietary software that because of terms in the federal grants that funded my salary, required that I provide the source to anyone that requested it. The C code was generally very hardware specific, mostly for ADC boards back when they had jumpers rather than PnP. Though most of my work was on signal analysis software in Matlab, interpreted languages are nice in that they're mostly backwards compatible. I know one of the programs is still being used even though it's about 12 years old now.

>>1
Microsoft is divided into several smaller businesses. Microsoft was actually forced by the government to split as it was approaching monopoly status. Fuck Apple, they are no where near

>>30
The reason Apple is not a monopoly is that Apple's products are mostly insular.  Apple primarily makes stuff for other Apple stuff and they just make their products compatible with other things for extra sales.

>>31
the reason apple is not a monopoly is that their products suck. if it weren't for their homosexual image, they wouldn't make any money at all.

>>32
The iPod is pretty decent. I bought mine 3 years ago because it had the highest storage space. If the PSP could actually fit into my pocket properly I wouldn't need an iPod though.

>>32
That's not a very good troll.

>>32
Of course it isn't. If he had posted it somewhere with a large population of homosexuals, like /b/, it might have been good.

>>33
the largest storage capacity of any ipod using flash memory 3 years ago was 8GB. you could have had twice that with a sansa e280 and an 8GB microsd card.
unless of course you're one of the hard drive models...
iPods have been criticized for their short life-span and fragile hard drives... In particular, failure rates for iPods employing hard drives was usually above 20% while those with flash memory had a failure rate below 10%, indicating poor hard drive durability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod#Reliability_and_durability

>>36
It's 30GB, I could have gotten a 80GB one but that seemed excessive. 2007 was 3 years ago, right?

>>37
2007.05.29 was 3 years ago.