In case you haven't noticed there haven't been any Motorola processors
around for some time now. In the early 90s streaming data was better
handled by Apple's QuickTime than anything in Windows. Windows had real
trouble trying to sync video and audio. But QuickTime was actually
about 10% slower than OS/2's handling of multimedia data using the same
hardware as Windows. It was the sophistication of QuickTime software
and not the hardware.
At the time I was the OS/2 multimedia data standards planner and IBM was
approached by Apple to incorporate QuickTime on OS/2 to help Apple
establish QuickTime as a standard. Even though OS/2's native stuff was
more efficient than QuickTime I recommended to my management that we
accept Apple's offer since OS/2 had not established any standards
either. But my management rejected Apple's offer. QuickTime survived.
OS/2 (with the better implementation) didn't. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/29/2010 4:35 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> I dare you to explain that in technical terms and give me a concrete
>> example. :-)
>
> In A/V circles, it was believed that the Motorola processor handled
> streaming data much more efficiently than Intel processors, but Intel
> processors handled random data more efficiently.
>
>
>> I accept that but its resistance to malware is mostly a function of not
>> being attacked very much due to low market share. But that will change
>> as Apple's market share increases (as it is doing)
>
> It has long-since changed. Malware and viri are rampant on Apple computers.
> Most users are just not aware of it because they have HISS (Head in Sand
> Syndrome). (compared to the typical Windows user who has HUBS (Head up...).
> It hasn't taken me too long to find out all I needed to know about malware.
> It is definitely true, however, that most up-to-date Apple computers are
> typically more resiliant than Windows computers, however, most of that
> resiliancy comes through limited abilities. Apple O/S does what it does
> extremely well, but doesn't do nearly as much as what Windows does. My
> Windows laptop is getting no less than five security updates a week. Apple
> users are just not aware of the same thing happening in their machines
> because Apple isn't as blatent about telling you that it's getting updated.
>
>>> . . . oh, and the fact that the average Apple machine will last a
>>> couple of years longer than a Winders equivalent (but does that mean
>>> that I have to keep it longer to prove that? ;-))
>
>> Got any proof of that? I thought not. :-)
>
> Well, actually... You both are correct. Apple machines are typically
> premium-grade machines. If you compare the average Apple laptop, for example
> with the average Toshiba/Gateway/Dell/Asus laptop, it is true that the Apple
> will generally last longer because it is physically better built. But the
> Sony/Lenovo/HP/Panasonic laptops can be purchased in an equal grade of
> construction. These machines last just as long as the Apples.
>
> Operating systems don't wear out, but they do rot. Windows tends to rot at a
> higher rate than Apple. An occasional reinstall of the O/S can clean up a
> lot of issues making machines run far more efficiently than they have in
> years.
>
> My Gateway laptop is five or six years old now. It was just before Vista
> came out so I got the XP operating system (thank you!!!!). Anyway, the
> laptop is almost as worn out as my wife's was. The screen is half shot, the
> case broken and things go howl in the night. Next machine will be a
> higher-grade of construction and will almost certainly be a Lenovo. I'd get
> an Apple, but I really have issues with the paternalistic attitude Apple has
> towards the customers. I never knew how bad it was until I got the iPad.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|