TiVo OS is not PNP - Page 2

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 2005-04-29, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> Frater Mus (FraterMus2005@mousetrap.net) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> > Other than needing to reboot for some software installs, there's nothing
>>
>> That's so evil, IMO. It really should be necessary to reboot except
>> when changing out essential chunks of the OS, or hardware.
>
> Yeah, like the twice-monthly Linux kernel updates. It's impossible to
> keep *any* OS patched and run it more than a few months in today's
> climate.

Depends on what you're doing. I have one Linux box in production with an
uptime of 882 days. That is a bit unusual, but we have Unix machines that
are up for hundreds of days without any interruption where I work.

Just because an OS patch comes out doesn't mean you have to jump on it. I
guess that's more true in the case of Linux than Windows since with Linux,
there's more of a layer between the OS and the applications.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

wkearney99 wrote:
>>Nice try. Obviously never used a Mac.
>
> Bzzzt, wrong again. I had my first 128k several months before the public
> ever saw one. This also after several Lisa's. I also worked there for a
> while. As the saying goes, "if you saw sausages made you'd never eat them
> again". Thus my being Mac-free ever since.

So, you've never used a modern Mac.
Things have improved over the last 20 years.
-Joe

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Joe Smith <joe@inwap.com> wrote in
news:BeKdnVKiyYkPyu7fRVn-vQ@comcast.com:

> wkearney99 wrote:
>>>Nice try. Obviously never used a Mac.
>>
>> Bzzzt, wrong again. I had my first 128k several months before the
>> public ever saw one. This also after several Lisa's. I also worked
>> there for a while. As the saying goes, "if you saw sausages made you'd
>> never eat them again". Thus my being Mac-free ever since.
>
> So, you've never used a modern Mac.
> Things have improved over the last 20 years.
> -Joe

Well, some things. Their marketing, however, is not one of them. I know
people who are surprised to learn Macs actually have color screens "these
days". You can either call these people idiots (which does nothing to
solve the problem and REALLY makes them love Macs all the more), or you
can take steps to correct the misunderstanding. As long as Apple insists
on coasting on ONE cool ad, now over two decades old, then people will
coast on the impression of Macs from over 20 years ago.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> The 1984 ad was and is hardly their only ad, but go ahead and continue
> to show your ignorance.
>
> The more recent ad campaign is testimonials form folks that have
> switched.
>
> http://www.apple.com/switch/

Well, I admire Apple in a lot of ways, but their current advertising
methods is not one of them. First, they're very condescending,
particularly to those of us who *know* what the differences are (though
admittedly that is likely *not* their intended market). Second, I
*can't* stand the way Apple continuously misrepresents test results to
tout their products. Sure, certain Mac models may be faster than PC's
in certain applications and vice versa. But trying to convince me that
somehow the latest/greatest Mac is *4 times* faster than any PC (I don't
think they're claiming this currently, but they did not that long ago,
maybe when the G4's or G5's first came out)? C'mon, I'm just not that
gullible, and it's obvious that they're biasing the numbers and the
tests in their favor. Sure, other companies skew numbers as well from
time to time, but Apple seems to do it consistantly.

Mac's have definite advantages in certain areas and speed advantages
doing certain things, and you may be able to show that they're speedier
overall than PC's (at times, though I think the leading edge of both are
probably fairly close), but a claim of 4x is just ridiculous and makes
me less likely to believe any other benchmark info they put out. They
ought to be pushing ease of use, design superiority and other
traditional strengths along with speed *parity*, otherwise they're just
alienating the techies who know better and provide a lot of advice to
friends and family members who are looking to buy computers.

Randy S.