> decisions every day based on old information that may no
> longer be accurate, but the resulting the decision could
> still be.
People make decisions every day based on old information that may no longer
be accurate, and the resulting decision is the wrong one, too. So, as
decision-making methods go, this doesn't sound too good.
> For example, suppose someone decides to buy a BMW
> because it allows them to connect their IPod in a nice way
> and no other car has that feature. At some point in the
> future other cars may have that feature, but the person
> continues to buy BMWs anyway. Does the person have to compare
> the features of the BMW to all other cars to be informed? No,
> the person can make a gut decision that the real reason BMW
> was chosen in the first place wasn't for that once feature,
> but the fact that BMWs tend to have innovative features first.
Then, it's (a) a mistake to say that the reason the BMW was bought was
because you can plug in an iPod, (b) a mistake to overgeneralize from being
able to plug in an iPod to being more innovative in general, and (c) a
mistake to assume that these "innovative" features have any real value. For
example, I plug my iPod into my VW Beetle every day I drive, using a $100
add-on mounting kit with FM transmitter, so instead of buying a BMW I can
spend my money elsewhere.
> Macs have long had a history of being first and Windows has
> had a long history of copying everyone else's good ideas. Do
> I know how each and every feature in Mac OS X compares with
> Windows 2003? No, because at a high level it is obvious where
> the innovation is. Longhorn sounds like it will have lots of
> good stuff, but Tiger will have it first.
Again, the innovation must have a certain value to make it worthwhile. In
any case, your original statement didn't have anything to do with the Mac
being an innovative platform - you said, and I quote, "The level of stress a
developer puts on their desktop requires Unix underneath." Apparently, for
many folks here including myself, this simply isn't true.
Finally, I'll simply remind you that it wasn't until OS X that Macs
supported preemptive multitasking! I guess that's innovation for you - I was
running OS/2 2.1 back in late '93, and it had preemptive multitasking. Now
that was an innovative platform, although the GUI was fugly.
> I wasn't really trying to convince you.
Then why bother? You've gone to a lot of effort, after all.
> I've interacted with you enough to know that you have no
> intention of avoiding Microsoft.
You're absolutely right. Why should I? Unlike you, I don't care one way or
the other about Microsoft as a company. They're no different from Apple or
Oracle or any other tech company headed by a megalomaniac. I care about
being able to do what I need to do. And since many potential clients also
use MS products, why should I eschew them?
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
