... go with an ARM-based system for their Macs which will kill any virtualisation options for Windows (which I think is a big draw for Macs). ...
This is a really good point, but in my experience, the number of folks running parallels (or any kind of Windows virtualisation), on their Mac is dropping off quite a bit lately. I only see one of these setups every three or four months lately whereas I used to have to deal with them all the time. I think a lot of folks did the virtualisation thing only as a way of justifying the fact that they were leaving Windows behind, which they eventually did.
This is a really good point, but in my experience, the number of folks running parallels (or any kind of Windows virtualisation), on their Mac is dropping off quite a bit lately. I only see one of these setups every three or four months lately whereas I used to have to deal with them all the time. I think a lot of folks did the virtualisation thing only as a way of justifying the fact that they were leaving Windows behind, which they eventually did.
I use them quite extensively. Not for my personal use OS but for testing. Now I understand my usage is not the norm but I have a feeling that this is one of those things Apple might heavily consider even though it's not that common.
My usage might even be more atypical as I use it for testing Windows Server which I think I could do right now with Amazon EC2 for free.
If you are executing x86 code it would then be emulated, not virtualized. This is much slower. Remember MS Virtual PC for PPC Macs? It wasn't good. The only solution would be for Windows to offer their desktop OSes with the ARM kernels. You then get the driver issues that we saw with Windows when they moved from 32 to 64-bit but it's do-able and MS certainly seems better poised to eschew Intel for ARM (read: add ARM instruction set as an option to x86 and x86_64) if they want to then they seemed ready to adopt 64-bit.
I have 4 os's running on my iMac currently, sad but true, Win 7 (64 bit) for a single app, Win XP (32 bit) for a single app, Linux and Apple's crowning glory I do not want to lose those 'single apps'.
It seems like Apple's business is strategy largely consisted of stealing Samsung's business partners (Intrinsity, Anobity) or stealing employees from Google Maps or Samsung's semi team. Can Apple do anything original?
LOL.
Okay, for the sake of argument and educating us.
Could you rattle off the list of successful, original products that Samsung and Google have pumped out in the last decade or more?
Google:
Self-driving cars (and maybe not; don't know the particulars).
The… way (and maybe not) they monetize our personal information.
AdSense, maybe?
Samsung:
I dunno, they do construction equipment. Maybe some of that isn't stolen from Caterpillar. Their home appliances sure look like knockoffs.
I was looking up Samsung Petrochemical, but there's no Wikipedia page on that, and I'm not about to learn Korean just to see what they make.
I did include the word 'successful' in that query... ;-)
I did include the word 'successful' in that query... ;-)
Provided they're original, Google's cars will be extraordinarily successful. Not that they'll be making cars, they'll perfect the tech and then license it to every car manufacturer. That is, if they're not complete idiots. As it stands, we'll likely see one company in each country that manufactures cars getting exclusivity for some disgusting reason.
LOL.
Okay, for the sake of argument and educating us.
Could you rattle off the list of successful, original products that Samsung and Google have pumped out in the last decade or more?
Like Apple, Samsung are evolving products that existing previously.
Provided they're original, Google's cars will be extraordinarily successful. Not that they'll be making cars, they'll perfect the tech and then license it to every car manufacturer. That is, if they're not complete idiots. As it stands, we'll likely see one company in each country that manufactures cars getting exclusivity for some disgusting reason.
I'm asking for proven, current-day, successful (makes a profit, not a loss), original products or services. I suspect Samsung and Google have had a lot less of these than we suspect, but I'm genuinely interested in being corrected if I'm wrong.
Apple have had a ton of these: the iMac, OS X, the iPod, iTunes music store, the Apple retail stores, the iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad, not to mention the various hardware/software formats they've been responsible for either making popular or killing off as appropriate.
I'd really like to hear if there is another single company that had the same influence.
I'm asking for proven, current-day, successful (makes a profit, not a loss), original products or services. I suspect Samsung and Google have had a lot less of these than we suspect, but I'm genuinely interested in being corrected if I'm wrong.
Apple have had a ton of these: the iMac, OS X, the iPod, iTunes music store, the Apple retail stores, the iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad, not to mention the various hardware/software formats they've been responsible for either making popular or killing off as appropriate.
I'd really like to hear if there is another single company that had the same influence.
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
Are you going to sit there and say you don't know a single Samsung device that exists? Like Apple, they are just improving previously existing products
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
You're hilarious.
By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
Comments
Originally Posted by tooltalk
or work for a copycat for the rest of yourself? Can Apple do anything original?
Now, we like to throw the word 'trolling' around a lot, and it's mostly valid, sometimes not.
Explain how the content of this post is not anything but pure, unacceptable lying. This is not a request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
... go with an ARM-based system for their Macs which will kill any virtualisation options for Windows (which I think is a big draw for Macs). ...
This is a really good point, but in my experience, the number of folks running parallels (or any kind of Windows virtualisation), on their Mac is dropping off quite a bit lately. I only see one of these setups every three or four months lately whereas I used to have to deal with them all the time. I think a lot of folks did the virtualisation thing only as a way of justifying the fact that they were leaving Windows behind, which they eventually did.
I use them quite extensively. Not for my personal use OS but for testing. Now I understand my usage is not the norm but I have a feeling that this is one of those things Apple might heavily consider even though it's not that common.
My usage might even be more atypical as I use it for testing Windows Server which I think I could do right now with Amazon EC2 for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If you are executing x86 code it would then be emulated, not virtualized. This is much slower. Remember MS Virtual PC for PPC Macs? It wasn't good. The only solution would be for Windows to offer their desktop OSes with the ARM kernels. You then get the driver issues that we saw with Windows when they moved from 32 to 64-bit but it's do-able and MS certainly seems better poised to eschew Intel for ARM (read: add ARM instruction set as an option to x86 and x86_64) if they want to then they seemed ready to adopt 64-bit.
I have 4 os's running on my iMac currently, sad but true, Win 7 (64 bit) for a single app, Win XP (32 bit) for a single app, Linux and Apple's crowning glory
LOL.
Okay, for the sake of argument and educating us.
Could you rattle off the list of successful, original products that Samsung and Google have pumped out in the last decade or more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
...Remember MS Virtual PC for PPC Macs? It wasn't good...
...But the emulated software was more reliable on my 12" Powerbook than on a PC notebook, even running an RS232 dongle to hardware!
Originally Posted by GTR
Could you rattle off the list of successful, original products that Samsung and Google have pumped out in the last decade or more?
Google:
Self-driving cars (and maybe not; don't know the particulars).
The… way (and maybe not) they monetize our personal information.
AdSense, maybe?
Samsung:
I dunno, they do construction equipment. Maybe some of that isn't stolen from Caterpillar. Their home appliances sure look like knockoffs.
I was looking up Samsung Petrochemical, but there's no Wikipedia page on that, and I'm not about to learn Korean just to see what they make.
I did include the word 'successful' in that query... ;-)
Originally Posted by GTR
I did include the word 'successful' in that query... ;-)
Provided they're original, Google's cars will be extraordinarily successful. Not that they'll be making cars, they'll perfect the tech and then license it to every car manufacturer. That is, if they're not complete idiots. As it stands, we'll likely see one company in each country that manufactures cars getting exclusivity for some disgusting reason.
I wonder what kind of coin this guy will be pulling in.
Like Apple, Samsung are evolving products that existing previously.
I'm asking for proven, current-day, successful (makes a profit, not a loss), original products or services. I suspect Samsung and Google have had a lot less of these than we suspect, but I'm genuinely interested in being corrected if I'm wrong.
Apple have had a ton of these: the iMac, OS X, the iPod, iTunes music store, the Apple retail stores, the iPhone, MacBook Air, iPad, not to mention the various hardware/software formats they've been responsible for either making popular or killing off as appropriate.
I'd really like to hear if there is another single company that had the same influence.
Can you give some examples?
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
Are you going to sit there and say you don't know a single Samsung device that exists? Like Apple, they are just improving previously existing products
Originally Posted by jfanning
Not one of Apple products etc are original, they are evolution of an existing product or service. Don't confuse a successful item with an original item
You're hilarious.
By your definition, the concept of originality doesn't exist.
Yes it does, but to claim that Apple is creating "original" items, and Samsung isn't is purely naive.
Originally Posted by jfanning
Yes it does, but to claim that Apple is creating "original" items, and Samsung isn't is purely naive.
And claiming something paid for is the same as something stolen is very IAU of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Yes it does, but to claim that Apple is creating "original" items, and Samsung isn't is purely naive.
So, to take a single example, you wouldn't consider the iPhone, as Apple introduced it in 2007, as an original product?
There were plenty of examples of this kind of device before 2007?
I'm aware of multiple Samsung devices, but not even one example that changed the world in the way that Apple has, not once, but multiple times.
Provide some examples where Samsung has done the same.