XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-xp, comp.ms.windows.advocacy
From: asockpuppet@asladekillfile.invalidorg
In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> Nyet John Slade wrote:
> >
> > And if Macs don't have anything to do with 'real computing', then it
> > wouldn't make sense for Apple to bother to market them to large
> > Enterprise. Golly, that's basically what I was saying (focus on
> > consumer), asd you're trying to argue on both sides on this point.
> >
> > Rather than to ask you to stop flip-flopping, I'm just going to let you
> > vote on both sides, which means a 2-1 decision in my favor! :-)
>
>
> Whatever. You're becoming quite boring.
Not to worry, because given your track record of self-contradiction,
you'll soon claim that I'm too exciting :-)
> > The prototype was working with a PPC based XServe (yeah, a "Mac"), but
> > couldn't find adequate qualified programmers on staff for the full scope
> > of what it was planned to be used for that would meet the schedule. So
> > the Mac was removed and replaced with then-inferior PC hardware because
> > .NET based programmer resources were available. The less capable PC
> > hardware did result in the design being scoped back to what the PC
> > hardware (of that day) could handle.
> > It was shipped out to Iraq a few years ago; it's still there and still
> > being used daily.
>
>
> The fact that they couldn't find programmers speaks volumes about it
> being useful, doesn't it?
No, and this was already mentioned, so try reading the above again, but
without your Confirmation Bias Filter engaged. I'll add some emphasis
to give you a free clue: they did have the programmers ON STAFF, but
they didn't have ENOUGH programmers of those qualifications to meet
SCHEDULE.
> I worked with VME/VXI bus based systems. A lot of those bought
> boards from various vendors to build their instrumentation they needed.
> Our product was DSP based telemetry. The main reason I have no use for
> Mac is that it was closed architecture. One VME/VXI based system we
> built sold for $80,000, and we had people waiting in line for them.
> They were software configured, so most customers needed our programmers
> to write the code, based on their needs. It was dual recievers with a
> digital diversity combiner. It took four RU space and could be
> controlled from anywhere via Ethernet.
Great for you. Unfortunately, its relevance here is ... what?
If you're trying to extoll your expertise in industrial applications,
its relevance to the target home consumer demographic of the Apple Mac
mini...is what? Be sure to be specific, and show all your work :-)
> Keep whining about Mac. I don't really care. The pile I have will
> soon be stripped for the screws and on their way to an electronics
> recycling center.
Your words say one thing, but your actions were to reply, which proves
that you actually do care. I am humored at someone of allegedly your
vast talents wasting his oh-so-valuable time stripping out a buck's
worth of screws...but I doubt that that's really the contradiction that
it appears to be.
Of course, the other irony here is that you were the one who previously
claimed that you were willing to "...use whatever does the job.", but by
your own statements, you've revealed your prior claim to be a falsehood:
what you've made patently clear is your irrational hate of a particular
brand of machine.
Unfortunately, you've made it all too clear that you spurn any real
consideration of any possible new tool being added to your toolbox, all
because you've chosen to become inflexibly set in your ways.
So I'm not whining at all: in fact, I pity you: you've chosen
stagnation.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
