umm. The first generation iPhone sold around 6 million units in the first year (at a good profit margin and with Apple getting a cut of subscriber revenue). It was Apple's first phone, and only sold in the US. Dismal failure? No. Was the subsequent model better? Yes.

The iPod was also quite successful (and essentially a market creator) even before Windows support was added, although I don't have any numbers handy to back this up...

We'll see about the tablet. I'm intrigued.

That really isn't the way it turned out. Before DSL and cable gobbled up most of the dialup market, the vast majority of Internet users were customers of ISPs that did *not* own the lines connecting them to their users. The telcos generally weren't successful ISPs at the consumer level until after dialup began to fade (although many were successful in selling upstream transit to ISPs in addition to phone lines).

Syslog, of course.

> > While Microsoft was battling with Vista that is a dog slow and resource-hungry Apple it would seem was focusing on speed, performance and elegance.

> Since when have Microsoft OSs not been slow and resource-hungry? And when did Apple ever not prioritize elegance and performance?

It is absolutely and utterly moot that these things have been true for a while, if the positions of the involved companies positions one better to leverage this difference and positions the other to be more succeptible to this perception. THAT is the point.

> > The upcoming "Leopard" OS is expected to be even slicker and faster than its predecessor OS X.

> Careful - your fanboyism's showing.

You're right. Any reasonable person would expect the next OS X release to have features toned-down and removed and arbitrary wait-loops thrown in just to keep people guessing. Good thing you called him on that.

> > And with Macs running on Intel hardware, how long will it be before Mac OS "Leopard" or its successor spreads out into the PC realm?

> Erm, a long time. Apple needs to differentiate itself from Microsoft to retain its market share. Moving to an Intel architecture was a risky step,
> as it deprived them of one of their major differentiating factors, PPC architecture.

I know everyone in our art department at work is thinking: "Let's keep buying Mac's. I love that they use that fabulous PPC architecture." The percentage of people that know or care about the underlying architecture of the hardward is barely measurable.

> The minute Apple runs on commodity PC hardware no-one has any reason to buy expensive Mac hardware, so they won't.

Few problems here. First, some people buy Mac hardware explicitly because it is more expensive and in their minds is of a higher quality. Second, you are assuming that there will be no "value-add" to running on Apple's hardware. Third, you are assuming that Mac hardware is and will continue to be "over priced" relative to some absurd benchmark such as the cheapest Dell machine you can rangle up.

> This takes Apple out of the hardware game, and makes them entirely reliant on software and iPods.

Yeah, that IS the question. Is it worth the risk for Apple to move to a more software-focused portfolio. I, myself, am unsure.

> Mac OS/X will then compete directly with Windows, and though it's faster, more stable and more secure, Windows has that whole 90%+ market
> share thing going for it. Apple would be squished in short order.

That would be true of anyone who wished to compete with Microsoft. Is your point that this is impossible and no one should ever try?

I don't have time to respond to the rest of this.

Justin Dubs

If you're trying to work with datasets larger than 65k lines you may want to check out Kirix Strata.

-Handles 60 Billion records
-Spreadsheet-like viewing of data from relational databases (drag in fields from related tables)
-Really, really fast
-Runs on Linux

Currently there's a 30-day evaluation version