Apple Patenting New Bicycle Computer Concept

Pokerface

redddraggon wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

So - the benefit of using OSX over Windows is ease of use, superb graphics and the chance to work on the 'original' instead of the 'copy'

OS shouldn't need to be full of "superb graphics" they should just be a base to run other applications off.

And yet, Windoze keeps trying to copy OSX's user interface. Because most consumers want it that way.

Not everyone is a programmer-type that only cares about running OTHER software on their computer.

OSX isn't just a base - it's more of an 'experience' designed to offer more than just a platform for other people's software to run. It;s designed to make using the computer fun and easy.

If other people's software doesn't run on it - that's down to lazy programmers.

Pokerface

RichardSwt wrote:

Oh no, I thought this being a bike forum I'd be free from Apple Vs Windows threads.

Apple Vs Windows threads should be filed in the 'Topics never to debate on the internet' along side Hardtail Vs Full Suspension, SPDs or Flats and Nikon Vs Cannon. (Nikon make far better cameras BTW).

This isn't a bike forum. It's Cake Stop. 8)


P.S. Sram is better than Campag.

Anonymous

Macs appeal to the graphics industry because the software has been developed for this platform FIRST and then ported to PCs - instead of the other way round - as is the case for most other software.

I'd love to see a link to support that.

Anonymous

Pokerface wrote:

RichardSwt wrote:

Oh no, I thought this being a bike forum I'd be free from Apple Vs Windows threads.

Apple Vs Windows threads should be filed in the 'Topics never to debate on the internet' along side Hardtail Vs Full Suspension, SPDs or Flats and Nikon Vs Cannon. (Nikon make far better cameras BTW).

This isn't a bike forum. It's Cake Stop. 8)


P.S. Sram is better than Campag.

I stand corrected, but point still stands.

Will Snow

freehub

Pokerface wrote:

Will - the only reason Windoze is 'easy' to use is because they ripped off all the features of OSX.


But Macs STILL do it better. Macs don't crash. Macs don't get viruses. Macs don't even need anti-virus software. Macs don't slow down. Macs don't need 'maintenance' to keep them running properly.


Macs appeal to the graphics industry because the software has been developed for this platform FIRST and then ported to PCs - instead of the other way round - as is the case for most other software.


Hell - you can even run your crappy Windoze software on a Mac if you're that pathetic.

Who said Windows crashes and slows down?

And so what is Microsoft copied off apple, but I reckon that's a myth brought on by apple fanboys.

I've got Mac OSX Snow Leopard in a virtual machine and see no benefits.

NapD, Internet explorer is sh1t, that's not windows. Safari is sh1t too.

Pokerface

RichardSwt wrote:

Macs appeal to the graphics industry because the software has been developed for this platform FIRST and then ported to PCs - instead of the other way round - as is the case for most other software.

I'd love to see a link to support that.

I'm not giving much away by saying I've been in the design industry for over 20 years now. And started working on computers from the very first Apple's onwards. Back then - companies like Adobe and Quark (or PageMaker or Aldus, etc) didn't even offer their software for the PC.

One of the reasons why the graphics industry 'grew up' on Macs and why I've never seen a design business that used PCs for anything besides typing up Word docs, etc.

On the flip side - most web design is done on PCs - probably due to it being 'programming' and not really 'design'

Pokerface

freehub wrote:

Who said Windows crashes and slows down?

Pretty much anyone who uses it.


Nothing wrong with Safari. When you use it on a Mac. :roll:

freehub

I reckon the reason why they always use macs is from when it was the G5 era, they had superior processing power compared to PC's of the day I believe.

I see no reason why a mac is better now though for graphics design, all the decent software is available on Windows, and there is no performance advantages of a mac system.

Have apple moved to i3/5/7 yet?

Pokerface wrote:

freehub wrote:

Who said Windows crashes and slows down?

Pretty much anyone who uses it.


Nothing wrong with Safari. When you use it on a Mac. :roll:

So how do you explain why I've never had a single crash in 10 months? Or slow down?


And why would you want to use Safari anyway? There are superior browsers out there, for example, Firefox and Opera.

Anonymous

Pokerface wrote:

RichardSwt wrote:

Macs appeal to the graphics industry because the software has been developed for this platform FIRST and then ported to PCs - instead of the other way round - as is the case for most other software.

I'd love to see a link to support that.

I'm not giving much away by saying I've been in the design industry for over 20 years now. And started working on computers from the very first Apple's onwards. Back then - companies like Adobe and Quark (or PageMaker or Aldus, etc) didn't even offer their software for the PC.

One of the reasons why the graphics industry 'grew up' on Macs and why I've never seen a design business that used PCs for anything besides typing up Word docs, etc.

On the flip side - most web design is done on PCs - probably due to it being 'programming' and not really 'design'

Well I certainly haven't been in the industry for 20 years so I believe what your saying about the past.

But a important point now is that actually Macs and PCs are very similar machines, both using Intel CPUs and have similar, if not identical architecture. Hence why you can install Vista on a Mac and (with a little more difficulty) OSX on a traditional PC.

unixnerd

The current generation of Windows is pretty much rock solid.

I'm a programmer, I program both unix and Windows systems. I'd say it was more like quicksand than rock.

And so what is Microsoft copied off apple, but I reckon that's a myth brought on by apple fanboys.

No, they really did copy it. But Apple copied it from Xerox Parc. To be honest Windows copied quite a lot from X11 (unix) as well.

The current Macs are nice bits of kit but way overpriced. A PC running Linux is much better value.

Aggieboy

freehub wrote:

I reckon the reason why they always use macs is from when it was the G5 era, they had superior processing power compared to PC's of the day I believe.

I see no reason why a mac is better now though for graphics design, all the decent software is available on Windows, and there is no performance advantages of a mac system.

Have apple moved to i3/5/7 yet?

Pokerface wrote:

freehub wrote:

Who said Windows crashes and slows down?

Pretty much anyone who uses it.


Nothing wrong with Safari. When you use it on a Mac. :roll:

So how do you explain why I've never had a single crash in 10 months? Or slow down?


And why would you want to use Safari anyway? There are superior browsers out there, for example, Firefox and Opera.

Because you're too careful to crash in Winter.

Pokerface

freehub wrote:

Have apple moved to i3/5/7 yet?

Pokerface wrote:

freehub wrote:

Who said Windows crashes and slows down?

Pretty much anyone who uses it.


Nothing wrong with Safari. When you use it on a Mac. :roll:

So how do you explain why I've never had a single crash in 10 months? Or slow down?


And why would you want to use Safari anyway? There are superior browsers out there, for example, Firefox and Opera.

Macs use i3/5/7 chips - yes.

Nothing wrong with Safari. No need to use another browser (although I have them all).

You stated earlier that you 'maintain' your computer - so I can only assume that's why it doesn't crash or slow down. That is not the case for most people.


Open challenge to PC users: Let's randomly select 100 people who are entering the realm of personal computing, determine what MOST people want to do with their computer, and see who figures out how to do it faster. Your ignorance would be astonishing if you said PC.

Pokerface

unixnerd wrote:

A PC running Linux is much better value.

Pardon my ignorance - but can you run all the usual software in this configuration?

Or would this just allow for programming, etc?


Me, as a Mac user - can I still run my Adobe software, etc on a "PC running Linux"?

Will Snow

yeah, its called WINE

freehub

Pokerface wrote:

unixnerd wrote:

A PC running Linux is much better value.

Pardon my ignorance - but can you run all the usual software in this configuration?

Or would this just allow for programming, etc?


Me, as a Mac user - can I still run my Adobe software, etc on a "PC running Linux"?

You have to run it through an emulator called wine that runs it in a windows environment.

Will Snow

or failing that a dual boot wouldnt be out of the question for maximum flexibility

Anonymous

I prefer playstation3

Will Snow

lol wine is not an emulator:- that is what wine stands for. No idea what it actually is though. NapoleonD, if you dont have anything vaguely intelligent to add, you could just not post

Pokerface

Will Snow wrote:

lNapoleonD, if you dont have anything vaguely intelligent to add, you could just not post

Yeah - because THIS was sooooooo intelligent:

Will Snow wrote:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Will Snow

we are entering fanboy territory, thats just true

freehub

Will Snow wrote:

lol wine is not an emulator:- that is what wine stands for. No idea what it actually is though. NapoleonD, if you dont have anything vaguely intelligent to add, you could just not post

Well it must be like an emulator, it's running a piece of software designed for a different OS within another OS.

Ok, Wiki explains it perfectly:

Wine is a free software application that aims to allow computer programs written for Microsoft Windows to run on Unix-like operating systems. Wine also provides a software library, known as Winelib, against which developers can compile Windows applications to help port them to Unix-like systems.[1]

Wine is not a full emulator, but is instead a compatibility layer, providing alternative implementations of the DLLs that Windows programs call, and a process to substitute for the Windows NT kernel. Wine is predominantly written using Black-box testing reverse-engineering, to avoid copyright issues.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_%28software%29

Will Snow

dont get me wrong, i dont know the difference. The only two things I know about it is that WINE stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator (which is a recursive acronym) and that it lets you use windows programs on linux. Its pretty much an emulator

unixnerd

Pardon my ignorance - but can you run all the usual software in this configuration?

Or would this just allow for programming, etc?

There are often freeware alternatives that are compatible. You can get a free office suite that will read and write most Micro$oft formats and is easier to use. I can't stand the current version of MS Office with the menu system designed by a two year old to confuse people.

Anonymous

Sorry WillSnow, should I have said Xbox 360?

Will Snow

the wit, it slays me

freehub

unixnerd wrote:

Pardon my ignorance - but can you run all the usual software in this configuration?

Or would this just allow for programming, etc?

There are often freeware alternatives that are compatible. You can get a free office suite that will read and write most Micro$oft formats and is easier to use. I can't stand the current version of MS Office with the menu system designed by a two year old to confuse people.

What is wrong with the menu system :?:

I fail to see the problem with it. Seems better than the ancient version.

Cleat Eastwood

I've got nothing intelligent to add, so I wont post either.

Anybody else with nothing intelligent to add, just queue up behind me.

Foucault

I don't really understand why the Windows vs Mac arguments still persist, especially as Windows 7 is pretty good. OK, so it has borrowed quite a lot from OSX in terms of style, but is that necessarily a bad thing? And for those Mac users who think they are immune from security issues, malware and trojans aimed at Macs really does exist in the wild (OK not in even at remotely the same level as Windows, but real all the same).

Anyway, back to the original point about Apple's patent application, while I think there's potential there, I'm not convinced. For one I can't see the battery life being too good when GPS is switched on (it pretty much kills battery life on my iPhone). Also I don't think the iPhone/iPod is the most robust thing to strap to a bicycle and they aren't exactly watterproof, while any wattery ingress will void your warraty. The other problem I can see is that you wouldn't be able to operate it when wearing gloves-real buttons rather than touchscreen ones work better. On the plus side the interface has to be better than my Garmin 705.

Finally just in case anyone thinks I'm anti-Apple, I should point out that I don't use Windows at home anymore and am typing this on one of my Macs

freehub

Don't forget, if Windows had the market share of Linux or OSX, the amount of viruses on Windows systems would be very small compared to how it is at the moment.