Linux-Advocacy Digest #243, Volume #29 Thu, 21 Sep 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea (Jim Broughton)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Darin Johnson)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:21:09 -0500, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >KDE is *not* a clone of CDE. CDE more closely resembles Windows 3.1,
>
> CDE has programs in "drawers" that pop out of a Panel that looks a lot
> like the one in KDE that has menus of programs.
Those just looked like extra start menus to me :-)
> It also has multiple
> workspaces that are selected by buttons on the panel, as in KDE.
That functionality is the realm of video drivers and shareware on Windows.
> It
> also offers a Motif look & feel.
Motif's widgets are much closer to Windows 3.1 than to Windows 95. I cite
placement and layout of the System Menu icon and the minimize / maximize
buttons. Also note the hotkey parity like ALT+F4 to close Windows.
> >KDE window frames and button placement are virtually identical to
> >Windows 95.
>
> You can change the button placement in the KDE Control Panel. You can
> also change the window frames if you have the Theme Manager installed
> (on 1.1.2). Win95 doesn't offer those features IIRC.
Try Windowblinds. Same thing.
> Nor does it
> offer multiple workspaces or allow you to move the taskbar around.
Multiple workspaces are a video driver fucntion. You *can* move the
taskbar around and even add new bars to it. You can drag those bars off and
make new bars or floating palettes. In fact you can make KDE look like
Windows and Windows look like KDE in seconds. KDE 2 is the best desktop
environment I've seen for UNIX but it's still not up to par with Windows
2000. Sorry.
> KDE has borrowed from several places. CDE is one, Win95 is one.
Right, no real innovation.
> >Or they may be failing to innovate, preferring rather to ride on the
> >coat-tails of Windows UI success.
> As Windows rode on the Mac's coat-tails?
All this desktop metaphor crap shoulda been hard patented by Xerox when
they invented it. It woulda put a stop to all this mess about who "stole"
from who. Windows is different than MacOS because Microsoft felt that
there were some usability issues with MacOS. They borrowed what was usable
(as Apple did from Xerox PARC) and invented better UI for what was not. I
don't see that same amount of difference between KDE and Windows 95.
> >I'd like to navigate into folders like I walk into a room
> >in Unreal Tournament.
>
> Someone actually wrote a program that allowed you to navigate through
> the Linux filesystem that way. IIRC it showed the various different
> types of files as different kinds of planets in a solar system and file
> sizes were denoted by the size of the planet. It was amusing to play
> with but didn't seem to have any real advantages as far as day-to-day
> use.
Where's that link? I'm sure it was just another half-baked attempt. Maybe
it could be extended...
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:17:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:56 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
>> > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
>> > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
>> > be my cheap beige keyboard).
>> >
>> > --Samurai
>> >
>> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Peter Ammon wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
>> > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
>> > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
>> > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
>> > > > > like Independence Day?
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
>> > >
>> > > Sure! Here you go.
>> > >
>> > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
>> > > x.ht ml
>> > >
>> > > Heh.
>>
>> But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
>> What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
>> if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
>> fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
>
>I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
>and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
>the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
>
>-Peter
Then please explain the purpose of the Apple Product Placement Team
refered to in the article. If everyone is falling all over themselves
why does Apple need a team dedicated to getting their products placed?
Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:37:17 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Semiconductor chips are designed and tested to have safety
> >> : margins in voltage, temperature, clock rate, etc. Running
> >> : a chip beyond its specifications throws the margins away,
> >> : so that changes in any of those parameters may cause failure.
> >>
> >> I would add that CPU is often *not* the performance bottleneck for
> >> common tasks (although it may be in certain situations). Overclocking
> >> even by a significant amount will not help performance measurably
> >> except for CPU-bound tasks, and, as Mark pointed out, it increases the
> >> risk of temporary or permanent system failure.
> >>
> >> People who really know what they're doing, and know the risks, can
> >> sometimes benefit from slight overclocking, but the average user
> >> should definitely NOT try this. Getting more RAM, building a leaner
> >> kernel, and eliminating unnecessary daemons will give far more
> >> performance "bang for the buck" for a pretty substantial majority of
> >> people.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >
> > Overclocking in an of ifself is not BAD. If done properly with the
> >correct selected hardware overclocking can be a viable solution to
> >an otherwise expensive upgrade. With the newer pentium III coppermine
> >chips overclocking is a very reasonably easy thing to accomplish.
> >You need a motherboard capable of very small incremental core voltage
> >increases and decent Front Side Bus speed increases. An Intel BX chipset
> >is also highly disirable. A good AGP graphics card that can handle higher
> >clock rates is also a must. The most limitig factor in all of this is your
> >memory sticks. PC100 SDRAM is an iffy thing as some can and some cant be pushed.
> >PC133 is the ideal. (wish I had some of them). Anyway I currently have
> >a pentium III 550 overclocked to 682 this is with a core voltage increase of
> >1/10 of a volt and an FSB of 124. It runs rock solid and has been for over
> >6 months.
>
> 682 / 550 = 1.24 This overclocker is getting a 24% speed
> increase, which is *barely noticeable*. In order to do it,
It is pretty noticable when playing a graphics intensive game.
> he's overheating his CPU (and other chips), since the heat
wow it runs 6 degrees warmer than at stock voltage and clockings.
Still runs UNDER 100 degrees F. While my old PII 350 ran 120+ stock.
> generated is at least proportional to the clock frequency,
> and is also operating the CPU beyond its specified voltage,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what Intel doing the same thing called "increasing the yield"
while at the same time castigating the user base of overclockers.
> further increasing the heat burden, and also increasing the
> rate of dopant atom migration within the silicon, which
> shortens the life of the chip.
see my last sentence.
>
> This type of operation throws away all the safety margins
> engineered into the CPU, which means that the results of
bulls*&$. We all know how Intel tests and grades the chips they
sell. Its no secret. They make a big batch then test the chips
at a rated speed if they fail they test them at a slower speed
until they dont fail. What a rip. Check out how they make
coppermine celerons sometime.
> all its arithmetic and logical operations can no longer be
> trusted as correct as tested by the manufacturer. Small
> variations in room temperature or line voltage could cause
> the CPU to make errors and thus to corrupt files.
more bull. What can be more arithmetic than calculations involved
in ploting and then rendering a full motion scene in todays fast
paced 3d FPS games. If your going to say its just the graphics card
then guess again.
I have no system errors nor do I get corrupted files. Neither in
in win98 or Linux. And I have compiled many Linux Kernels with this
setup and have not had a bad compile yet.
Oh yes one more thing I do not use a voltage regulated line (except
for the power supply in the PC) and I have NO air conditioning.
>
> If one isn't writing any files (except game scores), and if
> one intends to junk the machine for a faster one after a
> year or two anyhow, then burning the CPU into an early grave
> and getting possibly corrupt data may not matter, and the
> 24% additional speed presumably provides the same sort of
> satisfaction as modifying one's car engine to reach higher
> speeds.
>
> But using a computer that is or *has been* overclocked, for
> any non-game application, is running a great risk for no
> benefit whatsoever.
>
In your opinion and with very little data to actualy back up what
you say.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:58:41 GMT
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FR_x5.363$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > Of course you liberals would be just as happy selling off
> > everything to the Red ChiComs like Fearless Leader has
> > almost done.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> uh?..yeah!... whatever chad...<LoL>
Yeah what? Fearless Leader has already sold them:
- Vetoes and bills for passing
- Nuclear power and weaponry secrets
- Missile guidance systems and technology
- global satellite guidance systems and technology
- Federal parks to cover up rich deposits of
rare minerals (like low-sulfur coal which only exists
on large quantities in the US(Utah) and China)
- Stays in the Lincoln bedroom, tours of areas of the
Whitehouse even American citizens don't get to see
- Stays at Camp David
- Interviews and meetings with influential congresspeople
and other policy makers
- Near full access to the Pentagon with high level clearance
- most-favored trade status (while turning a blind eye to
horrible human rights violations)
- Permanent favored trade status which allows them to buy
previously restricted goods like aircraft, weaponry (both
large and personal), and other advanced technology
- computer equipment usually only available for U.S. citizens
or companies with export restrictions or bans
- shall I continue?
All of this is well documented. Any search engine should point
you to dozens of sites chronicling each and every one of
these actions, plus many more.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:03:00 -0500
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:42:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> We've talked about it so frequently here that I don't buy that excuse.
>> >Not with me you haven't.
>> And you skip all .advocacy messages that aren't addressed to you? You
>> skip all messages except those directly addressed to you? We both
>> know that's not true.
>
>I read less than a fifth of the postings on this forum. Does that answer
>your questions?
>
>> >Your failure to provide examples of the diferences between the two. "Paul
>> >'Z' Ewande" was able to rattle off a brief list with no problem. Why
>> >couldn't you?
>> You act as if I should jump every time you ask a stupid question.
>
>It wasn't a stupid question. You were making this big fuss about how
>different W2K is from W98, so it was only reasonable that you give a few
>examples. Which you proved incapable of doing.
>
>> Don't be silly. You can go to www.microsoft.com as easily as anyone
>> else.
>
>Why should I do your homework for you? You could have gone there yourself,
>you know.
That's where we differ. It's *YOUR* homework, because it's *YOUR*
problem and *YOUR* lack of knowledge, not mine.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:11:59 -0400
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >Hey Max. How fast do you type?
> >
> > Pretty fast, obviously. :-) Its not really typing speed, so much as
> > how fast I *think*, that enables me to keep up with a dozen random
> > trolls at once, and still have time for a serious conversation or four.
>
> Man, you must type fast. I'm amazed at the fact that you've posted over
> 700 messages to such diverse forums as:
>
> comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
> comp.lang.java.advocacy,
> alt.destroy.microsoft,
> comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
> alt.conspiracy.microsoft,
> etc.
>
> JUST THIS MONTH!
>
> That's 700+ messages in 20 DAYS so you must average like 35 messages a
> day. Say a it takes you about 10 minutes to read all those groups and
> craft each reply and you are looking at 350 minutes a day. That's
> almost SIX HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK!
>
> Assuming that you are not ripping your employer off by posting from work
> that means that after 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work you are
> spending every spare waking moment on USENET bashing Microsoft! That
> leaves you two hours a day for basic life activities like eating,
> bathing, voiding, etc.
>
> You are so committed you ought to be.
The irony is, ask him why he still uses Microsoft products in his leisure
time and his excuse is it costs too much of his time to avoid using it???
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:23:07 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:44:36 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
>pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
>I couldn't find 'em.
It looks like all that software is for monitoring and reporting
instead of any mission critical systems. Which I assume run on a very
simple embedded OS, if the systems (by themselves) are even complex
enough to warrant an OS.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:30:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:56 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >Timberwoof wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
> >> > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
> >> > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
> >> > be my cheap beige keyboard).
> >> >
> >> > --Samurai
> >> >
> >> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
> >> > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
> >> > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
> >> > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
> >> > > > > like Independence Day?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure! Here you go.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
> >> > > x.ht ml
> >> > >
> >> > > Heh.
> >>
> >> But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
> >> What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
> >> if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
> >> fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
> >
> >I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> >and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> >the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
> >
> >-Peter
>
> Then please explain the purpose of the Apple Product Placement Team
> refered to in the article. If everyone is falling all over themselves
> why does Apple need a team dedicated to getting their products placed?
At the very least, they need a team to interact with producers who want
to place their products.
People were falling all over themselves to order Beta. By your logic,
Apple should therefore have made no provisions to let people order Beta.
:-)
> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
Yes, frankly, I do.
-Peter
------------------------------
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:26:17 GMT
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My assertion is that adding extensions to the names of files is
> not the best solution to either problem, though it is the simplest
> and will likely remain in use for some time.
Sure, it's a method of last-resort for figuring out a file's type.
But it shouldn't be the only method.
What about a fictitious system, where if all else fails, determine
a file's type from it's extension. But if you add a file tag, the system
will use that in preference to any extension the file may have. If
the tag doesn't exist, or the file extension is vague, then examine
file contents. Etc.
This way, one jpeg file can be opened by a normal viewer by default, and a
different one is opened by a picture editor by default, and one that
doesn't have a tag assigned can still be opened easily, etc.
Of course, it's never going to happen...
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:40:40 -0500
[headers trimmed]
Jeremy Harbinson wrote:
> If I remember correctly, the Shuttle uses three computers for certain
> operations and then, democratically I suppose you could say, implements the
> majority decision.
FWIW, this is not the failsafe design that everyone supposes it is. It is provable
that such multi-node systems are tolerant to < 1/3 of nodes failing, *not* <= 1/3.
Thus three nodes do not provide good protection against a single node's failure.
You would need 4 nodes to protect against one failure, 7 to protect against 2
failures, etc.; i.e., 3n+1 nodes to protect against n failures.
I am curious whether Kubric and Clarke were aware of the relevant theorem and based
HAL's failure on that knowledge. (I don't even know when it was first proven.)
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 03:35:53 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >Hey Max. How fast do you type?
> > >
> > > Pretty fast, obviously. :-) Its not really typing speed, so much as
> > > how fast I *think*, that enables me to keep up with a dozen random
> > > trolls at once, and still have time for a serious conversation or four.
> >
> > Man, you must type fast. I'm amazed at the fact that you've posted over
> > 700 messages to such diverse forums as:
> >
> > comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
> > comp.lang.java.advocacy,
> > alt.destroy.microsoft,
> > comp.os.os2.advocacy,
> > comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
> > alt.conspiracy.microsoft,
> > etc.
> >
> > JUST THIS MONTH!
> >
> > That's 700+ messages in 20 DAYS so you must average like 35 messages a
> > day. Say a it takes you about 10 minutes to read all those groups and
> > craft each reply and you are looking at 350 minutes a day. That's
> > almost SIX HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK!
> >
> > Assuming that you are not ripping your employer off by posting from work
> > that means that after 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work you are
> > spending every spare waking moment on USENET bashing Microsoft! That
> > leaves you two hours a day for basic life activities like eating,
> > bathing, voiding, etc.
> >
> > You are so committed you ought to be.
>
> The irony is, ask him why he still uses Microsoft products in his leisure
> time and his excuse is it costs too much of his time to avoid using it???
Unless he's posting at work (and his post times seem to support this) all his
leisure time is spent using Windows. It doesn't really matter, he really has
no credibility with anyone anyway. He's more of a novelty than anything --
only here for serious debater's amusement (and consternation at times :-)
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:38:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
> > > > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
> > > > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
> > > > be my cheap beige keyboard).
> > > >
> > > > --Samurai
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
> > > > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
> > > > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
> > > > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
> > > > > > > like Independence Day?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure! Here you go.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
> > > > > x.ht ml
> > > > >
> > > > > Heh.
> > >
> > > But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
> > > What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
> > > if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
> > > fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
> >
> > I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> > and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> > the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
>
> How does it "look as so"? I don't see any evidence of anything other than
> good old paid product placement.
Did you not read the link?
"The brand is part of the popular culture...and production companies
seek it out."
"It has to be a Mac, and we can’t use anything else."
etc.
> How does it benefit the motion picture and
> television industries to display Macintosh computers?
Did you not read the link?
"The Apple brand makes a statement about the character in the movie."
Face it. Apple isn't just a computer company: it's a cultural icon.
(So is Microsoft....but they probably wish they weren't.)
> It's easy to see how it
> benefits Apple. Considering the size of the motion picture and television
> industry compared to the size of Apple, I think simple economics dictate that
> Apple is purchasing services from the these industries in the form of product
> placement.
Consider Forrest Gump. Apple's role, while very small, is obviously
more than just a computer. Replace Apple with Compaq, and that scene
just doesn't make sense.
Now consider: who do you think came up with that idea for the script? I
doubt very much that Apple approached the producers with suggestions
about the script. And, by extension, the producers had to come to Apple
to ask permission...not the other way around.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:41:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
>
> "In-theater Concession stand employees and ticket sellers will wear
> Apple/"Independence Day" t-shirts while on duty. This will bring Apple's brand
> message to over 25 million theater goers on July 4th weekend alone, in a place
> competitors have yet to use."
>
> If the year of collaboration with 20th Century Fox didn't cost them much I'll bet
> all those T-Shirts cost something! If you could get your head out of the sand for
> long enough you'd start to realize why Macs cost as much as two times more than
> similarly equipped PCs -- they blow tons of money on marketing (Chiat Day alone made
> $15 million on a single commercial back in 1984) and they profiteer on the hardware
> because of it.
Macs cost more because they're not a commodity. I have no problems
admitting that when I buy a Mac I'm paying way more than the sum of the
costs of the components and the labor required to put it together. It's
still worth it to me.
> They've got you all so convinced that you've got the "best thing
> going" that they don't even have to produce it. If it says Apple on it some people
> are going to blow a gasket telling you how revolutionary and how much "better" it is
> than everything else when most of the percieved benefits are the intangibles they've
> been sold.
Are you saying that I buy Macs because I've been fooled by the Apple
marketing department?
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:42:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Osugi wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > samurai wrote:
> > >
>
> <Snip>
>
> >
> > > I see paid advertisements in movies all the
> > > time for APPLE.
> >
> > Name one advertisement that you know is paid, and how you know.
> >
> > Until then, I'll consider you a liar.
> >
> > -Peter
> >
Argh! How did this get out there? I immediately regretted posting this
and cancelled it.
Samurai, you have my apologies.
-Peter
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
