> that is also accurate, and the resulting decision is the
> wrong one, too. So, as decision-making methods go, this
> doesn't sound too good.
I feel like I've entered Bizarro World here. Are you honestly saying that
it's no better to know something before making a decision than not to know
something, all other things being equal? Have you considered a career in
politics?
> > Then, it's (a) a mistake to say that the reason the BMW was
> > bought was because you can plug in an iPod,
> >
> It isn't a mistake if that was the reason.
You yourself said it wasn't. It either was, or it wasn't:
"For example, suppose someone decides to buy a BMW because it allows them to
connect their IPod in a nice way ..."
"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 ..."
> > (b) a mistake to overgeneralize from being able to plug in
> > an iPod to being more innovative in general, and
>
> I don't think it is an overgeneralization since it is
> certainly an innovative feature and they were the first ones to
> do it.
So, if I could find one innovation in Windows, I would be correct to
generalize that Windows is more innovative? Hey, this Bizarro World is kind
of nice!
> >(c) a mistake to assume that these "innovative" features have
> > any real value.
>
> If anyone perceives them to have value then they do.
You left your sentence unfinished. If someone perceives them to have value,
then they do - for that person. If I don't perceive them to have value, they
have none for me.
> Of course, if you had a BMW, you could spend the same amount
> of money on the connector kit and get seamless integration
> which gives you higher quality sound, safer interaction i.e.
> you can change songs from your steering wheel instead of from
> the IPod itself, the IPod is powered by your car, and it can
> be hidden away avoiding messy wires.
Or, I could keep my current car, and continue using the $100 kit which
already provides all of those things except steering wheel integration. And
when I use my spouse's car, I can pull it out of the lighter socket and use
it in there. I can also take my $10k or so and do something else with it.
To me, clearly, the latter solution provides much more value than your
solution. Your solution may be better for you, but my solution is certainly
better for me. Sound familiar?
> And that is just the IPod connector; you should see the rain
> sensing wipers.
No thanks, I can just turn the wipers on when it starts raining. It's
amazingly simple!
> Well remember, you are unique; you don't get BSODs, viruses,
> Trojans, worms, or networks saturated by elections and don't
> mind installing patches regularly or preying the latest
> exploit will be fixed soon. Unfortunately, millions of thers
> have a different experience with Windows. The fact that Unix
> avoids much of this and that Apple was able to use it as the
> basis of Mac OS X means that it has everything to do with be
> innovative; it's just another example.
I hardly think I'm unique, actually. It's easy enough to avoid all of those
things you mentioned. We're not talking rocket science here.
> Oh please, it is quite easy to cherry pick features that any
> particular OS had back in the day that another one didn't.
I don't see how that's any different from what you've been doing, aside from
the fact that my comparison of preemptive multitasking is accurate, while
your comparison of running processes with different user accounts wasn't.
> They are quite a bit different actually. Ask yourself the
> following questions. How interesting is the technology in
> markets that Microsoft dominates? How interesting is the
> technology in markets that Microsoft does not?
Well, what market other than PCs does Microsoft dominate? Honestly, I don't
think that there's a whole lot of difference between PC Oss right now - the
whole area just isn't that interesting.
On the other hand, I'm an avid Pocket PC user, and I really think that
Microsoft has been quite a bit more innovative than Palm or Handspring when
it comes to the functionality of the platform. You really ought to check it
out!
> Besides, what products your clients --both potential and
> not-- choose to use as nothing to do with what you yourself
> use. There seem to be plenty of Mac and Linux users
> developing for Microsoft-based products without any problem;
> what makes you different?
I find it to be helpful to work with a platform if I'm going to deploy
applications on it.
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]
