| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
ActiveWin: Site News | |
|
||
| Time: 13:17 EST/18:17 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Hi All! - Firstly we have to get something out the of the way, for testing purposes can the following users please e-mail us ASAP (Note - We've updated the list because we accidentally missed a couple of users off.:
Oh and don't forget our RSS and XML news feeds! | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 345 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:51:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/4/2002 7:13:18 PM |
| Are their pages that I'm missing? I actually think you guys could improve the site quite a bit. Really, not just being harsh, but I can see better stuff at play here, and you aren't trying to highlight your design skills here. Don't like that visited links lose the underline (side bar only?)--if you are going to have a visited style, make it a color change, not style/decoration change. (Maybe that's a personal thought, but the real problem is that you have text that looks like a link... or is it links that resemble text?...) You see the problem. |
| #27 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 9/4/2002 7:15:12 PM |
| #34 - Thanks, I'm sure I'll be adding more brightness to activewin in the future once various other bits and pieces are revamped. |
| #28 By 3 (62.253.128.4) at 9/4/2002 7:38:13 PM |
|
#37 - We're always happy to take criticism - the final CSS version was posted about 10 minutes ago by Chad and me. I agree with you though about text decoration changes. This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 at 19:40. |
| #29 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 7:38:24 PM |
|
I wasn't saying mediocre in terms of the product lines. I was referring to the business practices.
I'm not sure that I'd call Apple a market leader in anything, by the way. The software that is so great and acclaimed in the design world is Adobe not Apple. The processors are Motorola. You could try to argue that OS is a leader of something, but with less than 5% market share, I wouldn't say they are a leader. Oracle's market share is rapidly eroding due to fierce competition from DB2 and SQL Server. This hasn't yet caused the company to be unprofitable, but it has caused them to be less profitable. Sun's eroding market share due to Microsoft server OSes and Linux has caused it to become unprofitable. |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/4/2002 7:55:03 PM |
|
Like I said, Bob, you like MS for their business practices. I like companies for products. The idea that anyone of these three companies is about to go out of business is a joke (although I do recognize that Sun has a lot of concerns now), but in ten years, I bet you all three are still here. So that takes out the major concern of a business's practices affecting the product. Each one of these companies still hold a major percentage of the markets they target.
So what does their business practice have to do with mediocrity? You want to pretend that you aren't making a quality judgement of their products by examining their businesses but you can't escape it. And yet these are still quality businesses that make quality products. Nor can you admit that the success of a business is not directly related to the quality of their products. And still you're falling over Microsoft, waiting to suck Steve's or Bill's or whoever-will let-you's balls? Why? Are you obssessed with money? with SIZE? Seriously, can you tell me a single product, service, company, or person that you evaluate primarily on their profitability rather than their merits as you so readily do with Microsoft? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 at 19:56. |
| #31 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/4/2002 8:15:09 PM |
|
BobSmith - You are absolutely wrong. Nobody makes Macintosh computers better than Apple! And I mean nobody! That makes them a market leader. :-)
sodajerk - We're evaluating enterprise application monitoring tools here. Microsoft doesn't make one that fits our needs, but companies like Compuware, Mercury and such do. One of the factors in the equation is the financial viability of the solution provider. i.e. a small company with no clients will probably lose over the big guys unless their product is a much better solution. Size matters. Actually I'll bet in 10 years Sun will have been purchased by someone else like IBM or HP. |
| #32 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 8:34:30 PM |
|
I concede sodablue. Apple does make the best Macs on the market. I guess I shouldn't have brushed them off as I did.
If the Sun vs. Microsoft case goes badly, perhaps Microsoft will purchase Sun. They can certainly afford to. Then they could do what Sun never could do...really make Java an open spec. It will also confuse the hell out of everyone who supports Sun because they are anti-Microsoft. This post was edited by BobSmith on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 at 20:45. |
| #33 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/4/2002 8:47:38 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #34 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 8:54:55 PM |
| The point is that the goal of businesses is to make money. If the less successful companies adopted the practices and strategies of Microsoft, perhaps they would be more successful. |
| #35 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/4/2002 9:04:43 PM |
|
No, Bob, the point is technology is supposed to do useful things... I don't care how much money technology makes for a given company. As I said, you are making an asinine point about Microsoft, blurring financial success with the quality of its products, that you would never make about any other product.
But I guess you are the sort of person who actually believes that Titanic is the greatest piece of cinematic wonderment ever created. That a Chevy produced by GM is the greatest car. That AOL provides the best internet service. That a Sony or Hitachi stereo is better than a Denon. That a GE refrigerator is better than a Sub Zero. etc. |
| #36 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 9:26:20 PM |
|
FOR THE LOVE OF MAN JERK, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PRODUCTS! I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINES. NEVER DID I SAY I SUPPORT MICROSOFT BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DANG BIG. I MADE THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COLLECTIVE FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF SUN, ORACLE, AND APPLE AND SINGULAR FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF MICROSOFT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES THAT MICROSOFT EMPLOYED AND EMPLOYS TO HAVE A SINGULAR SUCCESS GREATER THAN THE COMBINED SUCCESS OF THE THREE AFOREMENTIONED COMPANIES. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS NOT THE COMPANIES PRODUCTS.
If you want to get into a conversation about technology quality, that is a whole differnt matter. I'm talking about the business. The success of a business is measured in dollars and by no other value or measure. Just ask the shareholders whether they care about the quality of a product. They care about dividends and book value. Your inability to read and understand what I say really frustrates me. |
| #37 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 9:28:04 PM |
| You've gotten me so annoyed that I have typos all over that post. Grr! |
| #38 By 3339 (67.116.253.190) at 9/4/2002 9:55:00 PM |
|
I can read fully well, Bob. And my point is the same. What other product category or business sector do you judge the success of their business purely on size and cash. Despite what you believe some companies exist for other reasons besides cash. Some exist to achieve longetivity, to prodyce a legacy. Some companies exist to be the best at what they do, which they do at a cost to the success of the business. This is easy to understand: no one would really think to say GM is a better company than Mercedes-Benz (pre-merger) because MB as a business is much better than GM at certain things. They may be intangible, people may differ on their opinion--but clearly each one has different strengths AS A BUSINESS even though looking at a balance sheet there's a clear winner.
In most every product, service category known to man there is always a smaller business which produces a higher quality product. These businesses stay smaller, produce less revenue, and profit less (even if they may have high profit margins)--and they do this consciously, purposefully, strategically in order to be a better business. This concept is so basic to understand that no one would ever stop to say Swatch is a better BUSINESS than Rolex just because they produce a larger revenue, have more customers, etc... (For some reason, I like using people examples:) who gives a shit about saying Britney Spears makes more money than Bob Dylan? What I wonder is why is such a big deal to you who has the better business, why this is intrinsically something you root for, instead of a better product. I think I've gotten you so pissed because you do realize that you are just rooting for a company to make more money, that you have gotten my point. There is nothing mediocre about Sun, Oracle, or Apple. |
| #39 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/4/2002 10:08:04 PM |
|
sodajerk - Hmm, I drive a BMW, listen to Denon, watch Sony, use my local phone for DSL, and I think my fridge is a Whirlpool.
I like Microsoft because I like many of their products, not all of them, but many of them. I like some popular stuff, some not popular stuff. Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I will point out that most geeks and artists, the type that use Linux and Mac are the anti-thesis... They use things only because they aren't popular. It makes them feel elite. |
| #40 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/4/2002 10:15:24 PM |
|
sodajerk - Oh, generally speaking the product which sells the most is the best. I define best as best choice for the average consumer. Honda makes better cars than Ferarri for instance.
Swatch is a better business than Rolex. They were the only Swiss maker to recognize the importance of digital time pieces, and so they didn't lose out to the Japanese. Also Swatch owns Tissot and Omega, and I like the looks of their watches moreso than Rolex. :-) I also like Citizen. |
| #41 By 3339 (67.116.253.190) at 9/4/2002 10:15:41 PM |
|
Ahh, soda... needing to get in on it. What point have you proven. You are only now supporting my opinion that a larger, wealthier company is not necessarily a better business than a smaller, boutique one.
I don't now why you think some of these products are the popular, non-elite version of a similar product. BMWs, Denon systems are the minority, are the elite. And, yes, geeks and artists like businesses and products that are high quality, elite products not mass appeal, mainstream crap. Yes. This is my point, apparently your's too despite the contradictions, but it is not Bob's point. |
| #42 By 3339 (67.116.253.190) at 9/4/2002 10:18:11 PM |
| Okay, I posted too soon. You are saying you think mainstream, populist is BETTER than high quality, targeted. Fine. That's what I disagree with. |
| #43 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/4/2002 11:15:09 PM |
|
You don't read well at all and you have missed my point completely. You tell me how interested Larry Ellison is in his Oracle database, Scott McNeally is in whatever it is his company does - UNIX, I mean Linux, I mean hardware, I mean Java, I mean um has no focus. I'd perhaps believe that Steve Jobs is more interested in...no, I wouldn't. All three are in it for the money. Their shareholders are in it for the money. The purpose of business is to make money. All three of them could learn a thing or two about making money from Bill Gates.
Incidentally both Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer receive nominal salaries for being chairmam and CEO respectively. Both have ceased to take stock options. If anything I'd say these two are no longer in it for the money. Up until the "no more stock options for us" announcement earlier this year, though, they were in it for the money too. What I want as an investor is a company that makes money. What I want as a consumer is a quality product. I haven't been talking about being a consumer in these posts. I've been talking about being an investor. Despite what you believe, businesses are more interested in making money than anything else. If they weren't, then the shareholders should move that a new board of directors be instated. The reason I'm pissed off is that you refuse to just say - Microsoft has an extremely successful business model and those who wish to be extremely successful might learn a thing or two by studying Microsoft's history. It is a very simple conclusion to draw. People that want to succeed can often learn from those who have succeeded. People that don't learn have to figure it out for themselves and often don't achieve as much as they could have if they had simply looked at someone who had already achieved greatness. In comparison to Microsoft from a balance sheet perspective - all three companies could likely stand to learn something. |
| #44 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/5/2002 12:34:32 AM |
|
sodajerk - "I don't now why you think some of these products are the popular, non-elite version of a similar product. "
I don't know that I think that. I was just stating my preferences didn't always lead to populist, but sometimes they do. Did I mention I like Polo and Nautica clothing? And some Hilfiger and Eddie Bauer... Levi's are still my favorite jeans, and while they were popular at one time they no longer are because they aren't elite. "geeks and artists like businesses and products that are high quality, elite products not mass appeal, mainstream crap." No, if that was true they wouldn't be buying Macintosh or Linux, as neither is particularly high quality. What was Apple's campaign slogan? Oh yeah, "Think different." Apple has targetted the anti-populist crowd since 1984, before that Apple was the populist crowd. That change in direction and attitude is pretty much what made them unsuccessful, but anyway... Come on, admit it, you know the type of person I talk about. The people who refuse to go to a mainstream movie like Titanic, but instead go to some indy flick and then gloat about it even though it really was quite boring. These are the people who buy Macs. "You are saying you think mainstream, populist is BETTER than high quality, targeted. Fine. That's what I disagree with. " No, I'm saying it all depends on how you define BEST. My general feeling is that what is important to me is what I feel is BEST. I don't care what you feel is best, I don't care what you buy... You just go ahead and buy Macintosh. Where I tend to get into disagreements is when people come in here and proclaim Windows sucks, Microsoft sucks, and Macintosh/Linux rules. That's when I point out that they don't know what is BEST for me, and probably haven't taken into consideration anybody elses needs but their own either. |
| #45 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/5/2002 12:35:27 AM |
| Has anybody else noticed the complete irony of the username 'Realist'? :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 345 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:51:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
