The reason why Oxford's wacky predictions won't happen

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 11:50
AM:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
>> decades,
>
> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?

Clearly not - but if history repeats itself the way OS X does things now
will be closer to how things will be done in 20 years than how Windows, and
likely Linux, do things now.

As an example from about 20 years ago: I was, at the time, teaching
computers to high school students for a weekend program. The other teachers
were using the state-of-the-art word processor: Word Perfect 5.1 for DOS. I
was using old (even for the time) Macs with a program few had heard of - MS
Word. Others told me that this was a mistake - that my students would
likely not use Macs in the future; but my view was that the Mac's GUI based
OS would be the way computers were made in the future. Sure enough, I was
right. Sure, things have changed in the last 20 years, but the general
concepts Apple was pioneering then have been shown to be the ones which are
used by the vast majority of computer users.

Look at the Mac now: it is designed to make multimedia creation and
manipulation easier than any other system - in part based on its media
browser and other tools to allow non-technical users to find music and
movies and more *and* to allow any user to use play lists and image albums
and the like throughout the system. With Leopard there is an integrated and
easy to use backup system that, while not perfect, is likely more similar to
how backups will be done 20 years from now than any other solution (from the
GUI side... on the back end backups will not be file-based... and Apple will
likely move to ZFS backups to do that relatively soon).

This does not mean, of course, that Apple and only Apple has any influence
or foresight into what computing will be like in 20 years: the Linux
community and even MS have a lot to offer there... but, I will guess, what
Apple is doing *now* is more like what the dominant platform of 20 years
from now will be doing than is any other relatively common system.

--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

---

› See More: The reason why Oxford's wacky predictions won't happen

Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> > OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
> > decades,
>
> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?

not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
than MS products have at that point in time.

you need to keep in mind MS basically rode the "fumes" of a dying IBM
into prominence during the 80/90's, but now they have nothing to stand
on and the opensource world of Apple has caught them at a dead end.

The only thing MS can do at this point is take over a Linux distro and
try and compete with Apple for the future, otherwise, the kids coming up
will only side with Apple since their products are so well respected.

> > IT departments the world over are fed up with Exchange, so they
> > are moving to Apple's open OSX Server in droves.
>
> Exchange is just fine, and OS X is not "open". It's proprietary
> software artificially tied to proprietary hardware. Yeah man, that's
> really "open"!

Exchange is "just fine" if you have an inefficient company and money to
burn. Plus you only take cues from IT, not more learned people within
computing. The Chief Editor of ComputerWorld recently sided with
Leopard. That is NOT GOOD for the old world companies still tied into
"punchcard era" IBM/MS solutions.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/11...vers/index.php

OSX is the most OPEN of any large enterprise solution. The hardware is
open, the OS is open, SUN, DeLL, MS have a long way to go before they
can compete against Apple at this point in the game.

No Server firm can compete on this level (see the link below). SUN is
basically a Mac Shop at this point, they know the writing is on the wall
and waiting to be bought out by Apple.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/

IBM has largely disappeared except for the few talents they have left,
such as cc transactions and that's about it.

> > Apple has a much better
> > enterprise solution for the Fortune 5000, the problem is people like you
> > that want users to suffer.
>
> Excuse me, but BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Why use Exchange when a more complete, opensource solution is available?
OSX Server works with all "legacy" Windows mail, file systems, but MS is
not the solution for any company that is wanting the best for their
employees.

MS is the old PUNCHCARD system, while Apple's Leopard Server is the
opensource way most companies will follow. Look at Wal-Mart, they are
HUGE Apple Fans, buying Xserves by the truckload. Sure the Walton's have
been Apple fans for years, but they know how to manage money, and know a
good value when they see it. They buy Xserves and Xserve RAIDs, which is
quite interesting.

> No one is running OS X servers. Apple has no "enterprise solution".
> Apple has no small business solution. Apple has only consumer
> solutions.

Wal-Mart is, and they are within the top ten of the world, Apple is and
they are within the top 100 companies of the world. Plenty of others,
but you wouldn't understand that.

> Apple has 0 presence in corporations. As long as they are perceived as
> a gadget manufacturer, that will not change. There is a reason they
> changed the name to "Apple" from "Apple Computer", and it wasn't to
> impress the Fortune 5000.

They have presence where smart people are. They are in ALL top 5000
firms, but to the degree depends on how good the IT department is in
tricking the "accountants" and "employees" to settling for a lower
standard. No firm would use MS products if they "could" help it. But
many are locked into MS's proprietary approach, while Apple frees them
from all of that. and ONLY uses open approaches to Servers, File
Formats, Machines, etc.

> You *really* need to get out more often and see what real businesses run
> on.

I see every company of every size, every day. Bob, you are out of touch
with what is happening in corporate america.

-

"Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07
12:41 PM:

> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
>>> decades,
>>
>> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
>
> not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
> than MS products have at that point in time.

Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby

DTC <[email protected]> wrote:

> > but you are lost on the actual history. the 286 replaced the 8088.
> >
> > but on the Apple // the 6502 (roughly the same as the 8088) remained the
> > main processor for 10 years after the PC went to the 286/386,etc...
> >
> > so the PC and the similar clones didn't last "nearly as long" as the
> > Apple //.
>
> You're lack of common sense and ability to obfuscate simply amazes me.

but for some reason i continue to make you appear foolish with every
reply you make. i stick with the facts which helps, but your clear
ignorance of the past is what trips you up every time. i've won another
round with your shallow knowledge of how computing worked in the 70/80's.

> Apple "the 6502 (roughly the same as the 8088) remained the main
> processor for 10 years" and "the PC went to the 286/386,etc..". In other
> words, Apple was stagnant while the PC improved with faster processors.

yes, it shows the longevity of Apple ][ hardware, it shows how IBM and
the clones where always trying to catch up to Apple at the risk of
making hot, expensive products with less functionality than the Apple //
or Mac.

The entire history of computing over the last 30 years has been a
massive attempt to keep up with "Apple". that's about as true as you can
get within the historical time of reference.

> You sir, are simply amazing.

thanks! I do understand computing history better than anyone else
posting here, glad you've finally acknowledged that.

Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >> - but the Apple II is the longest
> > >> living machine... specifically the Apple IIe.
> > >
> > > Nope. Apple 2 is gone. x86 is still here.
> >
> > The Apple IIe is no longer made but, as far as I know, no other individual
> > *model* of any personal computer was made and sold as a general consumer
> > device longer than it.
>
> The Commodore 64.

no, the C64 was only sold from 82 to 94, long falling short of the Apple
//'s 77-93 reign, (then on to 1997 as a daughter card, but it's fair to
not count that)

plus the commodore was never a serious business machine like the Apple
//, (the machine that started the spreadsheet, and concept of an office
suite) it was mainly a play toy for games like the atari.

> > If you wish to find a *model* of computer that outlasted the Apple IIe then
> > by all means I would love to hear about it... but other than that there
> > really is no room for disagreement.
>
> The Commodore 64. Sold from 1982 to 1994. It is also the best
> selling single computer of all time, with around 17 million sold in
> those nearly 12 years.

yes! you got one right! congrats BOB! Fireworks shoot off, a band plays,
finnnnnnnnnnnnally you got a piece of computing history correct!

> So, once again, the Apple 2 is NOT the longest lived computer.

Oh, so sad... then... you fail with ignorance. the Apple // sold 4 years
longer (8 years longer if you count the Macs that ran Apple //s). So
that is 4 YEARS longer life than the commodore 64.

but thanks for playing!

trust me... Bob you don't know your history on these decades, I know it
extremely well and will beat you every time.

just stay honest and you'll be okay.

-

Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/8/07
> 12:41 PM:
>
> > Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
> >>> decades,
> >>
> >> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
> >
> > not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
> > than MS products have at that point in time.
>
> Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
> mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.

OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
source in both hardware and software.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
1i7a0pt.e2x1u51n3zsvbN%[email protected] on 11/8/07 1:31 PM:

> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> [email protected] on 11/8/07
>> 12:41 PM:
>>
>>> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
>>>>> decades,
>>>>
>>>> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
>>>
>>> not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
>>> than MS products have at that point in time.
>>
>> Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
>> mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.
>
> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
> source in both hardware and software.

While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
different than the fact that MS is also a single source? Heck, I know many
companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they end up with a
single source for the hardware and another single source for the OS - with
Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that the
hardware and software will work very well together.


--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 2:01 PM:

> In article <C358C51C.98380%[email protected]>,
> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
>> different than the fact that MS is also a single source? Heck, I know many
>> companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they end up with a
>> single source for the hardware and another single source for the OS
>
> Which amounts to 2 different sources.

Well, sure, but how does that matter... other than that your hardware and
software might not work very well together? Keep in mind that when you buy
from, say, Dell, it is Dell who offers support - not MS.

>> - with
>> Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that the
>> hardware and software will work very well together.
>
> But Apple also has a very small hardware lineup.

That might be more of an issue: how many companies need a camera built into
every desktop machine?

> You can buy your Windows server from IBM, Dell, HP or a dozen other
> vendors and get the exact price-performance you are looking for. Plus
> you can get Enterprise class service and support. Apple offers nothing
> in this league.

Overall their support is better than anything Dell or HP offers - with the
exception of on-site repairs.



--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)

Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
> 1i7a0pt.e2x1u51n3zsvbN%[email protected] on 11/8/07 1:31 PM:
>
> > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
> >> [email protected] on 11/8/07
> >> 12:41 PM:
> >>
> >>> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
> >>>>> decades,
> >>>>
> >>>> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
> >>>
> >>> not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
> >>> than MS products have at that point in time.
> >>
> >> Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
> >> mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.
> >
> > OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
> > source in both hardware and software.
>
> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?

There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.

> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they
> end up with a single source for the hardware

If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
breach.

> and another single source for the OS

Sure, MS is the enterprise standard, but software doesn't wear out, and
in any event someone will release a Linux replacement.

> - with Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that
> the hardware and software will work very well together.

Nobody denies that, except perhaps the more rabid wintrolls, but that's
not the point.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
1i7a33m.1qx20bv1xuch4N%[email protected] on 11/8/07 2:33 PM:

> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> 1i7a0pt.e2x1u51n3zsvbN%[email protected] on 11/8/07 1:31 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
>>>> [email protected] on 11/8/07
>>>> 12:41 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
>>>>>>> decades,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
>>>>>
>>>>> not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
>>>>> than MS products have at that point in time.
>>>>
>>>> Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
>>>> mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.
>>>
>>> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
>>> source in both hardware and software.
>>
>> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
>> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?
>
> There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.

Sure... and the same can be said for Apple's x86 machines. Pretty much,
though, companies use Windows - at least on the desktop.

>> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they
>> end up with a single source for the hardware
>
> If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
> breach.

If MS does? In both cases you are tied to a single source for your primary
usage - though in both cases you could run Linux on the machines (or, with
Macs, you could even run Windows).

>> and another single source for the OS
>
> Sure, MS is the enterprise standard, but software doesn't wear out, and
> in any event someone will release a Linux replacement.

A Linux replacement for what? And keep in mind it would run in a Mac as
well...

>> - with Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that
>> the hardware and software will work very well together.
>
> Nobody denies that, except perhaps the more rabid wintrolls, but that's
> not the point.

Pretty much Apple gives you what Dell does *except* you can also run OS X on
it.


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

Snit wrote:
> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
>
>>> - with Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that
>>> the hardware and software will work very well together.
>> Nobody denies that, except perhaps the more rabid wintrolls, but that's
>> not the point.
>
> Pretty much Apple gives you what Dell does *except* you can also run OS X on
> it.
>

You can run OS-X on non-apple hardware. Not easy(or wise) but it has
been done.

As far as comparing Apple to Dell hardware-wise, the big difference will
be that you *will* pay prime for Apple hardware compared to any other
hardware, period.

Now, the question that everyone would like a answer to...when/if will
Apple release OS-X for non-Apple hardware? Now that would be the M$ killer.

Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
> 1i7a33m.1qx20bv1xuch4N%[email protected] on 11/8/07 2:33 PM:
>
> > Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
> >> 1i7a0pt.e2x1u51n3zsvbN%[email protected] on 11/8/07 1:31 PM:
> >>
> >>> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
> >>>> [email protected] on
> >>>> 11/8/07 12:41 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> OSX Leopard Server is the way the world is going to work in the next 2
> >>>>>>> decades,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So in 2027 everyone will be running OS X 10.5?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not "everyone", don't be absurd... but it will have a larger following
> >>>>> than MS products have at that point in time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that
> >>>> does not mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20
> >>>> years.
> >>>
> >>> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
> >>> source in both hardware and software.
> >>
> >> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
> >> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?
> >
> > There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.
>
> Sure... and the same can be said for Apple's x86 machines. Pretty much,
> though, companies use Windows - at least on the desktop.

My point is that "OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance
because it is single source in both hardware and software." Apple's
hardware is irrelevent in this context.

> >> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they
> >> end up with a single source for the hardware
> >
> > If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
> > breach.
>
> If MS does? In both cases you are tied to a single source for your primary
> usage - though in both cases you could run Linux on the machines (or, with
> Macs, you could even run Windows).

OS X is a single source product.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"§" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 2:58 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
>>
>>>> - with Apple it is much the same except with Apple it is more likely that
>>>> the hardware and software will work very well together.
>>> Nobody denies that, except perhaps the more rabid wintrolls, but that's
>>> not the point.
>>
>> Pretty much Apple gives you what Dell does *except* you can also run OS X on
>> it.
>>
>
> You can run OS-X on non-apple hardware. Not easy(or wise) but it has
> been done.

Sure: but I was thinking in terms of doing things in a legal, moral, and
supported way.

> As far as comparing Apple to Dell hardware-wise, the big difference will
> be that you *will* pay prime for Apple hardware compared to any other
> hardware, period.

Why? In most comparisons Apple does quite well:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>.

What you can do with Dell, however, is customize your system more - so if
you do not need a camera on your desktop you do not have to pay for one.
That does make a difference.

> Now, the question that everyone would like a answer to...when/if will
> Apple release OS-X for non-Apple hardware? Now that would be the M$ killer.

Or an Apple killer.


--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

"Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
1i7a4qv.ujwrsckaf94N%[email protected] on 11/8/07 3:04 PM:

>>>>> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
>>>>> source in both hardware and software.
>>>>
>>>> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
>>>> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?
>>>
>>> There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.
>>
>> Sure... and the same can be said for Apple's x86 machines. Pretty much,
>> though, companies use Windows - at least on the desktop.
>
> My point is that "OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance
> because it is single source in both hardware and software." Apple's
> hardware is irrelevent in this context.

Apple's hardware is irrelevant to a claim about Apple as a single source of
hardware and software? Er?

>>>> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so they
>>>> end up with a single source for the hardware
>>>
>>> If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
>>> breach.
>>
>> If MS does? In both cases you are tied to a single source for your primary
>> usage - though in both cases you could run Linux on the machines (or, with
>> Macs, you could even run Windows).
>
> OS X is a single source product.

As is Windows.


--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

At 08 Nov 2007 09:07:10 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> it supports IMAP in exchange, and plenty of companies have connectivity
> solutions to ms's proprietary approach.
>
> http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keat...ne-syncs-with-
excha
> nge-server.asp
>
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/pro...change-server-
support
> -273492.php

That's the best you could do? Two speculative blog entries posted before
the launch?

Neither of which, BTW, address syncing your contacts or calendar with an
Exchange server. Exchange is more than e-mail.

> i proved you wrong again, give it up bob, you are clueless when it
comes
> to facts

Actually you've illustrated a basic lack of understanding of what is
expected of an enterprise device. Here's your mission to prove Bob and
the rest of us wrong. Setup a free Exchange account at
live.mail2web.com, and get your iPhone contacts and calendar uploaded to
it using only your iPhone. Report back with your failure or success, and
tell us HOW you managed it if you did. That information will be
invaluable to the Blackberry and/or WinMo users chafing at the bit to
"trade up" to an iPhone.