nht

gatorguy said:

genovelle said:

I was shown by the IT guy at a hospital I worked for how chrome had a server installed on windows machines that ran constantly in the background transmitting data to Google even when Chrome wasn’t running. It interfered with our servers and bogged everything down. so they prohibited it on the computers. It was also a HIPPA violation because the was unknown data being sent from a computer accessing patient data. Remove it and everything worked perfectly. 

That IT guy needs to further his education
https://support.google.com/a/answer/3407054

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

wallym said:

As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.

I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.

Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.

That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.

Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

Nope.

But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...

Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?

And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

Nah.

I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.

Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.

And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?

I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

wallym said:

As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.

I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.

Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.

That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.

Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

Nope.

But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...

Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?

Mike Wuerthele said:

wallym said:

As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.

I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.

spheric said:

randominternetperson said:

spheric said:

StrangeDays said:

eightzero said:

StrangeDays said:

eightzero said:

The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit. 

Yes, sorry for the manifesto. 

What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?

Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.

If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.

The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”

It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first. 

The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.  

Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make. 

So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed?  The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).

The race was closer than Americans care to remember. Rah-rah #1 and all that. 

If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.