Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58812 > unrolled thread

Mac sales in mild decline

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:20 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 18:33 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 19:27 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 01:01 +0000
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 21:57 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:30 +1200
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:54 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:27 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:20 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:41 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 12:39 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 19:21 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:35 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-27 02:28 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:54 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-28 09:03 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-04-28 11:29 +0100
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:14 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:10 +1200
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-24 16:16 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:13 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 15:05 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 00:28 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-25 18:11 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:00 -0400
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Rob Noland <not@this.com> - 2014-04-25 20:16 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 20:54 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:59 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-23 16:33 -0700
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 20:00 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-23 21:25 -0700
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:25 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 12:15 -0700
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:04 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 15:09 -0700
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:32 -0400
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 17:33 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 21:01 -0700
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-24 21:31 -0700
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-04-24 21:48 -0700
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 04:42 -0400
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:23 +1200
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:35 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 16:07 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-24 00:59 +0000
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-23 23:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:55 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:53 -0400
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:03 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-24 02:13 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-25 14:58 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 10:26 +1200
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-26 13:56 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-27 10:13 +1200
                Re: Mac sales in mild decline John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-04-27 10:09 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 10:31 -0400
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:55 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:21 +0000
                        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:42 -0400
                          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:46 -0400
                  Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:19 +0000
                    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:45 -0400
                      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:38 +0000
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-04-27 11:15 +1200
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-26 19:20 -0400
              Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:12 -0500
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 11:09 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-25 18:38 -0400
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-27 10:10 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 16:34 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 00:48 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-24 18:30 +1200
    Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 00:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-26 18:22 +1200
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-26 09:02 -0500
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:41 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-04-26 11:43 -0500
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 13:05 -0400
      Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-27 21:36 +0000
        Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 20:41 -0400
          Re: Mac sales in mild decline Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-28 05:44 +0000
            Re: Mac sales in mild decline Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 16:40 -0400

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#58812 — Mac sales in mild decline

With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline 
that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly 
peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a 
continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.

See link below.

Sales peaked at 5,198,000 units in 12Q1 and there has not been a 5M unit 
quarter since.  The past quarter rang in at 4.14M units with an average 
of 4.33M units over the last 4 quarters; and 4.28M over the last 8 quarters.

Mac revenue is slightly up from the same quarter a year ago.

Apple no longer break Mac sales down into Pro, iMac, Book and mini.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yf1glio0gwgvplh/MacSalesUnits-14Q2.jpg

- - - - -

Not related to the release, but there have been "low price iMac" rumours 
in the press in recent months - if true, then perhaps a bid to attract 
newcomers to the Mac.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58813

On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
> 
> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline 
> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly 
> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a 
> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.


What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
what you can do with them.

In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).

My Mac Pro is 5 years old, upgraded to 4 TB of storage and 24 gigs of
memory. Sure it could do with a boost in CPU speed for when I do some
Premiere/AfterEffects (which I often send off to my server anyways), but
for daya to day use, it still does the job quite well.

The problem with the media is that they make it look like people use
their computers less instead of stating that computers last longer these
days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58814

On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>
>
> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
> what you can do with them.

The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of 
tablets.  Most people are information consumers and a tablet is adequate 
to most such needs.

> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).

Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to 
'93, more or less w/o trouble.

> My Mac Pro is 5 years old, upgraded to 4 TB of storage and 24 gigs of
> memory. Sure it could do with a boost in CPU speed for when I do some
> Premiere/AfterEffects (which I often send off to my server anyways), but
> for daya to day use, it still does the job quite well.

Several people have updated their Mac Pros with new processors - you 
could likely get more cores in there and max out the clock if it's not 
already up to the board max.  (I seem to recall someone here talking 
about taking a quad core MP to 6 core or something along those lines - I 
don't recall if it was dual Xeons...).

>
> The problem with the media is that they make it look like people use
> their computers less instead of stating that computers last longer these
> days.

It's true that computers do seem to have a longer serviceable life.  My 
prior iMac fetched a very good resale value after 6 years of good use 
and I'm sure the buyer will get a lot of good use out of it.

Maybe the first intel wave of buyers will be upgrading in the next few 
years - just on time to be stunned by 16 core ARM iMacs the following year.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58820

In message <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>
>>
>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>> what you can do with them.

> The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of 
> tablets.

There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
there is evidence of that.

-- 
Thanks to great leaders such as Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, and Socratic
Method, the world is full of history.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58823

On 14-04-23 21:01, Lewis wrote:

> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
> there is evidence of that.

And there is also much less compelling need to upgrade. In the case of
Apple, there is also reduction of function by producing new models that
have fewer features (fewer ports, and in case of Mac Pro, no disk
storage, less sound in/out ports etc)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58838

In article <53586f78$0$7147$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-04-23 21:01, Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
> > there is evidence of that.
> 
> And there is also much less compelling need to upgrade. In the case of
> Apple, there is also reduction of function by producing new models that
> have fewer features (fewer ports, and in case of Mac Pro, no disk
> storage, less sound in/out ports etc)

No CD / DVD drive. No floppy disk drive. No Apple serial port. No SCSI
port.  ;-)

The new iMacs actually have MORE ports than the old ones - the CRT
iMacs only had (from memory) two USB ports and no Thunderbolt /
Firewire ports or SD card slot.

Even in Windoze world few people bother to upgrade very often, hence
all the over-hyped advertising, etc. trying to get Windows XP users to
upgrade.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58830

In article <slrnllgojt.2tv.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of 
> > tablets.
> 
> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
> there is evidence of that.

there definitely is evidence of that. people are buying ipads and
android tablets *instead* of a laptop or even a desktop. 

apple has even said as much in their earnings calls, as have other
companies. tablets killed the netbook market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58833

On 14-04-23 23:05, nospam wrote:

> there definitely is evidence of that. people are buying ipads and
> android tablets *instead* of a laptop or even a desktop. 

That is perhaps because they already have a laptop and don't need to
replace it.

Sales figures in a quarter don't give the real figure of what equipment
people use because sales figures do not say how much people use their
existing equipment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58893

On 2014.04.23, 21:01 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>>
>>>
>>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>>> what you can do with them.
>
>> The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of
>> tablets.
>
> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
> there is evidence of that.

Various market analysts, reporters, etc. point to tablets and mobile 
phones as helping people put off buying new desktops and even laptops.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324695104578414973888155516

http://globalnews.ca/news/1072693/pc-sales-saw-worst-ever-decline-in-2013/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/11/personal-computer-decline-pc-obsolete

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58958

In message <C5SdnXL4j93xIMfOnZ2dnUVZ_qcAAAAA@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.23, 21:01 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>>>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>>>> what you can do with them.
>>
>>> The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of
>>> tablets.
>>
>> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
>> there is evidence of that.

> Various market analysts, reporters, etc. point to tablets and mobile 
> phones as helping people put off buying new desktops and even laptops.

Yes, ANALcysts are in the habit of reporting their guesses and opinions
as if they were well-researched facts. They aren't, they are guesses and
opinions.

We know that people are holding onto computers longer. That is a fact.
We know people are buying tablets. That is a fact. We do not know
anything at all about if those two things are linked.

For the record, I have several computers that are 5 years old and are
still perfectly usable and useful machines for the majority of modern
computer tasks I need a computer for. This has never been true in the
past. I cannot even begin to imagine using a 233Mhz Bondi iMac in 2003 for
anything but the most rudimentary tasks, while my 2009 mini and 2009 MBP
are capable of doing just about everything my 2012 machines can do.

-- 
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.." -
Oscar Wilde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58969

On 2014.04.27, 17:27 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <C5SdnXL4j93xIMfOnZ2dnUVZ_qcAAAAA@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.23, 21:01 , Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>     Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>>>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>>>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>>>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>>>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>>>>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>>>>> what you can do with them.
>>>
>>>> The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of
>>>> tablets.
>>>
>>> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
>>> there is evidence of that.
>
>> Various market analysts, reporters, etc. point to tablets and mobile
>> phones as helping people put off buying new desktops and even laptops.
>
> Yes, ANALcysts are in the habit of reporting their guesses and opinions
> as if they were well-researched facts. They aren't, they are guesses and
> opinions.

The WSJ does not deal in "guess" pieces nor reporters who work so.

> We know that people are holding onto computers longer. That is a fact.
> We know people are buying tablets. That is a fact. We do not know
> anything at all about if those two things are linked.

Tablets aren't exactly new anymore.  I know a lot of people who have all 
but abandoned their desktops/laptops but are now on their second iPad. 
They are information consumers, not particularly enamored with computers 
and not looking to ever get one again.

> For the record, I have several computers that are 5 years old and are
> still perfectly usable and useful machines for the majority of modern

You are nowhere near typical and of course as a sample of one that's 
statistically irrelevant.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58980

In message <XaadnbAe158iDcDOnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.27, 17:27 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <C5SdnXL4j93xIMfOnZ2dnUVZ_qcAAAAA@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2014.04.23, 21:01 , Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>     Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014.04.23, 18:33 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>>>>> On 14-04-23 18:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With today's earnings report, the Mac line looks to be in a mild decline
>>>>>>> that has gone on now for the past 2 years.  While there are quarterly
>>>>>>> peaks and valleys, looking at the data with a 4 quarter average shows a
>>>>>>> continuous decline v. the 2010-2012 period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What people (and the Wall Street Casino Analysts) forget is that
>>>>>> computers have essentially stopped evolving from the point of view of
>>>>>> what you can do with them.
>>>>
>>>>> The general decline in computer sales is more due to the uptake of
>>>>> tablets.
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence of that. People are holding on to computers longer,
>>>> there is evidence of that.
>>
>>> Various market analysts, reporters, etc. point to tablets and mobile
>>> phones as helping people put off buying new desktops and even laptops.
>>
>> Yes, ANALcysts are in the habit of reporting their guesses and opinions
>> as if they were well-researched facts. They aren't, they are guesses and
>> opinions.

> The WSJ does not deal in "guess" pieces nor reporters who work so.

The WSJ's main focus is entirely guess work. It is a newspaper written
by and for lotto players.

>> We know that people are holding onto computers longer. That is a fact.
>> We know people are buying tablets. That is a fact. We do not know
>> anything at all about if those two things are linked.

> Tablets aren't exactly new anymore.  I know a lot of people who have all 
> but abandoned their desktops/laptops but are now on their second iPad. 
> They are information consumers, not particularly enamored with computers 
> and not looking to ever get one again.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

>> For the record, I have several computers that are 5 years old and are
>> still perfectly usable and useful machines for the majority of modern

> You are nowhere near typical and of course as a sample of one that's 
> statistically irrelevant.

Right, I am not typical. So if a 5 year old machine is still good for
me, imagine in the hands of a typical computer user? It's got another 5
years of life in it, at least.

-- 
There is something to be said for grace and respect but humour alway
helps - Toby Morris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58829

In article <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> > processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> > scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> > version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
> 
> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to 
> '93, more or less w/o trouble.

other than the clock running backwards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58916

On 2014.04.23, 23:05 , nospam wrote:
> In article <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
>>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
>>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
>>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
>>
>> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to
>> '93, more or less w/o trouble.
>
> other than the clock running backwards.

No such issues.  I don't recall the specifics of what was updated or 
patched at the time, but that PC served hard and well through that period.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58925

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.04.23, 23:05 , nospam wrote:
> > In article <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> >>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> >>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> >>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
> >>
> >> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to
> >> '93, more or less w/o trouble.
> >
> > other than the clock running backwards.
> 
> No such issues.  I don't recall the specifics of what was updated or 
> patched at the time, but that PC served hard and well through that period.

Read again what you posted in the "Not that I recall" paragraph.

You said that you were running a computer from 1998 to 1993. Clearly it
must have had a problem if its clock went backwards five years in the
time you were using it. :-)

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58970

On 2014.04.26, 19:15 , David Empson wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.04.23, 23:05 , nospam wrote:
>>> In article <JfudnX_plOv20cXOnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
>>>>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
>>>>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
>>>>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
>>>>
>>>> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to
>>>> '93, more or less w/o trouble.
>>>
>>> other than the clock running backwards.
>>
>> No such issues.  I don't recall the specifics of what was updated or
>> patched at the time, but that PC served hard and well through that period.
>
> Read again what you posted in the "Not that I recall" paragraph.
>
> You said that you were running a computer from 1998 to 1993. Clearly it
> must have had a problem if its clock went backwards five years in the
> time you were using it. :-)

Yeah - I finally got the memo.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58928

In article <b8udnRPc8-fZfMbOnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
> >>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
> >>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
> >>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
> >>
> >> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to
> >> '93, more or less w/o trouble.
> >
> > other than the clock running backwards.
> 
> No such issues.  I don't recall the specifics of what was updated or 
> patched at the time, but that PC served hard and well through that period.

read what you wrote.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58933

On 2014.04.26, 19:20 , nospam wrote:
> In article <b8udnRPc8-fZfMbOnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> In the 1990s, you needed a more powerful machine to run the latest word
>>>>> processor (and the latest windows machines). In 1999, there was a mad
>>>>> scramble to buy noew Y2K compliant computers (because you needed a new
>>>>> version of WIndows to be Y2K compliant).
>>>>
>>>> Not that I recall - I had a computer running the span of about '98 to
>>>> '93, more or less w/o trouble.
>>>
>>> other than the clock running backwards.
>>
>> No such issues.  I don't recall the specifics of what was updated or
>> patched at the time, but that PC served hard and well through that period.
>
> read what you wrote.

Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for 
that matter right.

Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were 
no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I 
don't recall.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58937

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for
> that matter right.
> 
> Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were
> no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I
> don't recall.

Wow, you must have had the first computer to run for over 1900 years.
In fact, you must have had the first computer period, in the 1st
century.  Run into any Y1K (or Y.1K) problems?

Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58942

On 2014.04.27, 05:28 , Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> Doh!  I'll blame it on a typo 'cause that's damned convenient and for
>> that matter right.
>>
>> Clarification - I had a computer running about 98 to 2003 and there were
>> no Y2K issues.  Whether that was solved by a patch before then or not, I
>> don't recall.
>
> Wow, you must have had the first computer to run for over 1900 years.

You funny.


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web