Bill I could not agree more. I didnt see the first comment becuase long ago I set up a rule to delete any mail from him for this exact thing. There are many others on this list that have far more knowledge than him and I did not want to keep getting his negative comments and insults he has for others.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Mayo, Bill <bem...@pittcountync.gov> wrote: > Sorry to disappoint, but I don't find your comments "hurtful". I just find > your constant need to insult and belittle people to be childish and > annoying. If your arguments are as superior as you believe them to be, they > can stand on their own. There are a lot of different opinions on this list, > but I don't see anybody else doing what you do. Just state your opinion and > keep the snide comments to yourself. > > In regards to how you have diagnosed Apple's problems, were you using Macs > at that time? Working for Apple? If not, then I submit you don't know what > issues the company had or the folks that used Apple's products had (and > thefore what caused people to leave the platform). Personally, I have been > using Macs (and PCs) for over 20 years, so I feel have some perspective. > Apple was doing serious software development for what was to be "Copland" > that included all the buzzword-friendly features of the time; the problem > they had was in trying to make it backwards compatible. When Amelio brought > in the software head from IBM (don't remember her name), she killed the > project and set things in motion that would ultimately lead to Mac OS X. > But you are completely incorrect that Mac OS X was what turned Apple > around. Instead, it was the first iMac, which ran the "toy" OS. It was > YEARS before Mac OS X shipped, let alone became usable (with 10.1)--long > after Apple was back in the black. > > Nobody has said that third-party development tools makes features "go > away". The point is that it is then up to the makers of those tools to > support the new features. Apple is saying that, in their history, those > makers are slow to adapt those new features or do not adapt them at all. If > you make a cross-platform development tool, how many resources are you going > to devote to implementing a feature that is only on one platform? If the > feature is not available in the development environment, it cannot be > incorporated into the resulting application. Therefore, it doesn't matter > if the feature is available on the hardware/OS or not. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:23 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Steve Jobs on Flash > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Mayo, Bill <bem...@pittcountync.gov> > wrote: > > I will refrain from saying what I would like to say about your last > > comment. I will not stoop to your typical level of verbal abuse. > > If you really found the "Reality Distortion Field" remark hurtful, I > apologize, and withdraw it. However, I stand by the rest of my statements. > > > They are requiring that you use their development tools, based on the > > past experience that cross-platform development aimed at the Mac > > nearly destroyed the company. If you have followed the history, then > > you would know that this is not fiction. > > I would call it fiction. > > The Mac fell behind was because they didn't do any significant software > development for nearly a decade. While even freaking > *Microsoft* was discovering security, preemptive multi-tasking, and memory > protection, Apple was still trying to sell people their toy OS for a premium > price. So the rest of the world was introduced to things like reliable > multimedia and video games, while apps on the Mac struggled to keep up. That > also meant app developers found it harder and harder to support the Mac, so > fewer and fewer apps were available. > Even *Linux* was making better inroads against Microsoft than Apple, and > this was back when people still sometimes had to write X11 mode lines by > hand. > > Apple turned around with the release of an OS that could keep up with > modern usage, and started producing software that people actually wanted to > use. > > It's not like third-party development tools aren't available for Mac OS X. > It's a BSD Unix underneath the pretty GUI; you can install and run whatever > you want. Heck, might it even ship with GCC? If third-party development > tools are the cause of Apple's downfall, why are they succeeding like never > before, now that it's actually *easier* to build *ugly old Unix apps* for > the Mac platform? > > > I am not sure why it is hard to understand that there is a competitive > > advantage in having more advanced features than the competition. > > Allowing third-party development tools (cross-platform *or not*) does not > make those features go away. > > I find the idea that the use of third-party development tools would cause > the iPhone's features to become unavailable absolutely ludicrous. > > If you think that means I'm calling you a moron, so be it. > > -- Ben > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
