Oh, I understand your illness. I have two PC boxes (one OEM Compaq piece of sheet, one built-from-scratch AMD), an old ass G4 Mac, a MacBook, an Intel iMac, a 2nd gen iPod, 3rd gen iPod, first gen Video iPod, 1st gen Nano, and 2 second gen nanos in my family. Oh, and an iPhone that has pretty much rendered all my iPods (other than my video iPod, and one nano to use with my nike + sensor) obsolete.
I haven't taken the Linux leap, but I might as well considering we never use either of our XP PCs anymore.
Well, fudging a bit, but the "higher end" mini and the "lower end" iMac (to make them more comparable) comes out to about $200 if you don't already own a monitor. $400 difference if you already have a monitor, and the Mac Mini is actually MORE expensive than an iMac if you configure it with a 20" Apple Cinema display.
Even a totally spec'd out Mac Mini is still not as good as the low end iMac though. I guess your point is valid if you are stating people will want an absolute bare bones Mac-mini for $599. But then again, I believe most people in the market for a Mac will see the benefit of spending $1100 on an iMac compared to the relative weak Mac mini configuration. I do have one friend who felt it was better to buy a Mac mini and his own third party monitor, but he was sadly disappointed when he used my iMac. Faster, with a better monitor;-)
Do you have any evidence that people are buying the mini because of the form factor and not simply because it is the cheapest mac on the market?
In true slashdot user form, no, I don't;-) But, it is hard to fathom that the average intelligent person would buy a crippled MacMini for $200 less than what they could get a better iMac for, IF they weren't attracted to the pure simplicity of the mini form factor. If $200 is a big concern for the consumer, they most likely aren't consdiring a Mac in the first place.
While I don't agree with your police-state rant, I do understand the sentiment in your post. Consumers DO have alternatives. Consumers just need to have the balls to buy something like Mac OS X and realize that you don't magically stop being able to do things with a computer, just because you don't use what everyone else uses. I've been using supposedly incompatible Macs since 1988 and I've done just fine not being a slave to the Microsoft grind. Then again, the majority of slashdot loonies think Apple is just as evil as Microsoft anyway, so I guess you'll have to look to something from overseas.
Well, if Microsoft spent half as much time in making a decent product in the first place, they wouldn't have to sneak in all the "features" that help preserve their monopoly. This is what people are upset with. OS X updates, for example, make the computer run better, in contrast to the Microsoft's method of updating your computer to ensure you reamain a Microsoft Customer.
Exactly. I'm one of those people under attack for "spying on behalf of the government". I've said many times on slashdot that we don't give a crap about you, and are far too busy to monitor your mundane computer-geek lives. And no, I'm not a right-wing, neo-con hack either. I hate them as much as I hate the far-left cowards that hide behind the false notion that our government is stealing your liberties.
"Cheap" and "good enough" are terms best reserved to the corporate world. As a home user, I'd rather spend my hard earned money on something not limited to being labelled as "good enough". Since I don't make any money using my computer at home, I don't care about the bottom line or profit margins. I want the best thing my money can buy.
I'm not sure what the term is, but your lack of hard drive failures have given you a false view of hard drive reliability. Hard drives are easily documented as having higher than acceptable failure rates, anecdotaly and through technology reviews/research. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. More importantly, when it does happen to YOU, you seem to take notice of the problem. Some other guy on slashdot has it in his sig...something about denying what you've never seen doesn't make it true...I suck at paraphrasing, but I'm sure he'll pop in here and clear it up.
You seem to be approaching the need for big disks from a purely sysadmin point of view.
You must be new here. (YES!!! Finally I get to use it!)
Wow, you must have a big nerdy family;-) I think we solve our family data issue by just having multiple computers, which is a pain in the ass. My primary computer has a 500gb hard drive, though, which I'm sure could hold everything thing for all four of us. The laptop, however, barely holds just my wife's iTunes collection:-( It doesn't help that we are a family of "creatives" and I am a musician.
I'm with you on the whole "what about the home user" deal though. Nerds are one of the most egocentric (if not THE most) group of friends I have. And I thought guitar players were bad...
I've read about the limited writes limitation of flash RAM, but to me it seems that the lifespan of flash RAM will still be better than your average hard drive that manages to break every 5 years or so (at least for me). Or perhaps this is the quintessential YMMV situation?
Also, I've never seen any benchmarks, but flash memory seems to be several times faster than hard drives in typical use. At least in waking up from sleep. I'd like to try an OS mounted on flash memory on my computer to see if seek, access and read/write times are perceivable different. Anyone have any links with benchmarks?
Excellent point! I'm not an engineer, but I fail to understand why these guys are looking to newer, solid-state solutions. Frankly, I'm tired of the shitty spinning-disks that always break, make a lot of noise, and generally suck. Instead of trying to come up with 4x the amount of storage in 4 years with existing technology, why not explore something new? I'd rather have 250gb worth of flash memory than a TB of delicate platters anyday.
Ok, so I see your point now that you've tempered them back towards reality. I still have a few minor disagreements. The 20" iMac can be carried in for service in the original box with one hand, but given the repair history of this model, you most likely will never do this. The Mac-mini is signficant, because there simply is no competition. Other companies have tried to make mini computers, but they haven't had nearly the success Apple has. (I personally don't get the allure, but obviously there is a big demand for it). Bundling Windows with a Mac isn't that much more money. Bootcamp is free, and you pay the price of some XP disks. Maybe buying the disks from the store is a bit more expensive than OEM, but hardly a deal breaker. If someone is taking the plunge into a Mac and wants XP, they aren't going to be bothered by an additional $200 for windows. I built my own PC so I had XP disks laying around already. I don't know if it is legal to use them, but I don't use the PC anymore, so why not?
You don't need a KVM switch for an iMac. It supports dual monitor output in both mirror and two monitor layout. (I upgraded to the better video card, so I'm not sure if the stock one does this). You can even run Windows on one and OS X on the other. It really is brilliant. And yes, I realize other PCs can do this too, but it isn't fair to say the iMac can't without a KVM swtich, when it clearly isn't the case.
I think you (and thousands of slashdot posts elsewhere) really are just wanting Apple to make bare-bones towers for rock bottom price, but this will never happen. Just like Mercedes-Benz will never make an entry level economy car. It just isn't going to happen.
I'll take you up on contrasting the Apple line with the likes of Dell...you overlooked one very important thing in that Dell's don't run OS X, but Macs do run XP. For me, that is the bottom line. And yes, I know it's Apple's fault for not licensing OS X to Dell, but since that won't ever happen, I have to trust (and hope) that Apple keeps making good enough hardware in the mid-range like they are now in the Intel iMacs. Watch this space, but I'm just going to predict that the majority of Mom and Pop computer users in 5 years will be using all-in-ones modelled after the current line of iMacs. The PC all-in-ones mostly suck, but that's because very few of them put the quality into the design like Apple does. Anyway, I'm already going to be modded -50 for off topic, so enjoy your week!
Stew
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because peddlers of porn are greatly disconnected from the world of violent crime? Guess you haven't been to many strip clubs lately.
And even though they bought a Mac, they can be comfortable knowing they can even use AOL on a Mac (well, for however long AOL lasts).
Except they accidentally deleted the email that said they were fired because it was buried in porn and prescription meds emails.
Anyone still working for AOL really has a problem reading the writing on the wall, eh? Or maybe they were counting on a nice fat severance pay.
I haven't taken the Linux leap, but I might as well considering we never use either of our XP PCs anymore.
Even a totally spec'd out Mac Mini is still not as good as the low end iMac though. I guess your point is valid if you are stating people will want an absolute bare bones Mac-mini for $599. But then again, I believe most people in the market for a Mac will see the benefit of spending $1100 on an iMac compared to the relative weak Mac mini configuration. I do have one friend who felt it was better to buy a Mac mini and his own third party monitor, but he was sadly disappointed when he used my iMac. Faster, with a better monitor ;-)
Except editing your posts then, hehe. ...three mac boxes, one windows box, and the third a linux box ;-)
I think most people don't trust their (microsoft) computers because they don't work as advertised, not because they don't understand them.
I went to the bathroom the other day at work and came back to a rebooted machine, and my work not having been saved. What a crock.
The corporations are the biggest suckers, because they hire people to run their computers that hold phony MS certificates.
While I don't agree with your police-state rant, I do understand the sentiment in your post. Consumers DO have alternatives. Consumers just need to have the balls to buy something like Mac OS X and realize that you don't magically stop being able to do things with a computer, just because you don't use what everyone else uses. I've been using supposedly incompatible Macs since 1988 and I've done just fine not being a slave to the Microsoft grind. Then again, the majority of slashdot loonies think Apple is just as evil as Microsoft anyway, so I guess you'll have to look to something from overseas.
Well, if Microsoft spent half as much time in making a decent product in the first place, they wouldn't have to sneak in all the "features" that help preserve their monopoly. This is what people are upset with. OS X updates, for example, make the computer run better, in contrast to the Microsoft's method of updating your computer to ensure you reamain a Microsoft Customer.
Exactly. I'm one of those people under attack for "spying on behalf of the government". I've said many times on slashdot that we don't give a crap about you, and are far too busy to monitor your mundane computer-geek lives. And no, I'm not a right-wing, neo-con hack either. I hate them as much as I hate the far-left cowards that hide behind the false notion that our government is stealing your liberties.
"Cheap" and "good enough" are terms best reserved to the corporate world. As a home user, I'd rather spend my hard earned money on something not limited to being labelled as "good enough". Since I don't make any money using my computer at home, I don't care about the bottom line or profit margins. I want the best thing my money can buy.
I'm not sure what the term is, but your lack of hard drive failures have given you a false view of hard drive reliability. Hard drives are easily documented as having higher than acceptable failure rates, anecdotaly and through technology reviews/research. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. More importantly, when it does happen to YOU, you seem to take notice of the problem. Some other guy on slashdot has it in his sig...something about denying what you've never seen doesn't make it true...I suck at paraphrasing, but I'm sure he'll pop in here and clear it up.
Wow, you must have a big nerdy family ;-) I think we solve our family data issue by just having multiple computers, which is a pain in the ass. My primary computer has a 500gb hard drive, though, which I'm sure could hold everything thing for all four of us. The laptop, however, barely holds just my wife's iTunes collection :-( It doesn't help that we are a family of "creatives" and I am a musician.
I'm with you on the whole "what about the home user" deal though. Nerds are one of the most egocentric (if not THE most) group of friends I have. And I thought guitar players were bad...
Also, I've never seen any benchmarks, but flash memory seems to be several times faster than hard drives in typical use. At least in waking up from sleep. I'd like to try an OS mounted on flash memory on my computer to see if seek, access and read/write times are perceivable different. Anyone have any links with benchmarks?
are = aren't....my bad...
Excellent point! I'm not an engineer, but I fail to understand why these guys are looking to newer, solid-state solutions. Frankly, I'm tired of the shitty spinning-disks that always break, make a lot of noise, and generally suck. Instead of trying to come up with 4x the amount of storage in 4 years with existing technology, why not explore something new? I'd rather have 250gb worth of flash memory than a TB of delicate platters anyday.
You don't need a KVM switch for an iMac. It supports dual monitor output in both mirror and two monitor layout. (I upgraded to the better video card, so I'm not sure if the stock one does this). You can even run Windows on one and OS X on the other. It really is brilliant. And yes, I realize other PCs can do this too, but it isn't fair to say the iMac can't without a KVM swtich, when it clearly isn't the case.
I think you (and thousands of slashdot posts elsewhere) really are just wanting Apple to make bare-bones towers for rock bottom price, but this will never happen. Just like Mercedes-Benz will never make an entry level economy car. It just isn't going to happen.
I'll take you up on contrasting the Apple line with the likes of Dell...you overlooked one very important thing in that Dell's don't run OS X, but Macs do run XP. For me, that is the bottom line. And yes, I know it's Apple's fault for not licensing OS X to Dell, but since that won't ever happen, I have to trust (and hope) that Apple keeps making good enough hardware in the mid-range like they are now in the Intel iMacs. Watch this space, but I'm just going to predict that the majority of Mom and Pop computer users in 5 years will be using all-in-ones modelled after the current line of iMacs. The PC all-in-ones mostly suck, but that's because very few of them put the quality into the design like Apple does. Anyway, I'm already going to be modded -50 for off topic, so enjoy your week! Stew
You just lost every Microsoft Engineer when you said "use-cases".
Nice try, but people don't like the old coke in this case either. The just dislike it less than the new coke.